Posted on 10/29/2015 7:35:55 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne
.
First, there's no doubt that the MSM-Debate folks were trying to screw Dr. Ben Carson at Wednesday's GOP Debate III in Colorado ....
just like the MSM and "Willard" Romney did Herman Cain in 2012 (et al).
It's not "fair", but it's "blood sport politics" (just ask Sarah Palin).
Accordingly, Dr. Ben Carson's campaign staff effectively POLITICALLED KILLED their boss for NOT being pro-active about the question of Mannatech.
Somebody on Dr. Ben Carson's staff should be FIRED.
Period.
It's a "legal fact" that once money or "renumeration" trades hands, the two parties involved have an "association".
That's what the RICO laws are all about.
Quid Pro Quo.
It's my suspicion that the Mannatech product genuinely helped Dr. Ben Carson's medical condition.
That's a good thing.
But Dr. Ben Carson (for reasons I cannot even fathom) labeled questions about his "association" with Mannatech as ...
liberal news media lies and "PROPAGANDA".
WHY did Dr. Ben Carson do something that STUPID ?
Didn't he know the story and evidence (including pictures that I've posted today at Free Republic) were AVAILABLE to EVERYONE ?
Hell, it only took me FIVE minutes at Google to locate a score of images showing Dr. Ben Carson speaking at Mannatech conferences ($ 120,000 for three speeches).
Doesn't Dr. Ben Carson and his Campaign Staff KNOW-REMEMBER the 2012 Herman Cain debacle ?
Haven't they EVER heard of "Google Searches" ?
Holy Mackerel ... what COSMIC incompetence on display.
And folks still believe that Dr. Ben Carson is "intellectualy" (not mentioning the MORAL aspect) of running a SUCCESSFUL presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton ?
Dr. Ben Carson is a BRILLIANT surgeon --- BUT a complete, utter ARROGANT FOOL to think that he can HIDE "anything" during a presidential campaign.
Period.
Doesn't Dr. Ben Carson and his campaign Staff REMEMBER how the MSM interviewed people who had been Junior High School colleages of Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign ?
Rest assured ... EVERY malpractice lawuit (imagined or real) against Dr. Ben Carson ...
and EVERY traffic stop sign violation ...
and EVERY "scorned" romantic woman in his life ...
and EVERY disgruntled and jealous staffer / nurse / janitor ...
who's ever been within 100 miles of Dr. Ben Carson ...
will be BRIBED to LIE about him ...
and that doesn't include "questionable" donations from Mannatech, Walmart, Captain Kangeroo, or Mother Theresa.
These are the reasons that I consider Dr. Ben Carson's lie (in front of 11 million TV viewers) the "beginning of the end" of his 2016 presidential campaign.
Heck ... Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton's "Opposition Reseach Teams" probably have already collected the serial numbers on the $ 100 bills used in the $ 120,000 total transactions between Dr. Ben Carson and Mannatech.
Finally, Dr. Ben Carson's "nuclear-powered political base" is sincere Evangelical Chrsitians.
They DEMAND 100.0001111 percent honesty, especially from fellow "Christians" running for political office.
I predict the beginning of a "slow-drip" MSM news release process (similar to Hillary's e-mail scandal) ...
secretly financed by Yeb Bush and Marco "Amnesty" Rubio
to slowly DESTROY Dr. Ben Carson's "shield of Christian ethics".
And just like Herman Cain in 2012, the Ben Carson campaign will STUPIDLY release documents slowly, always behind the MSM / Yeb Bush "Scandal Eight Ball" ...
instead of a rapid 100-percent FULL disclosure of "every dime" paid by Mannatech to Dr. Ben Carson.
Meanwhile, back at the 100-million dollar Yeb Bush campaign, TV commercials are NOW being prepared to TELL the whole Mannatech story ...
including TV advertisement interviews with the scores (?) of "innocent victims" of the "greed-driven-alliance" between Dr. Ben Carson and Mannatech.
Yeb Bush and Karl Rove are DESPERATE to DESTROY Ben Carson. They will succeed.
Fox News is 100-percent fighting FOR Yeb Bush.
Soon, we'll see George Will and Dr. Krauthammer and A.B. Stoddard on Fox News ... (falsely) crying in their beer ...
about how "tragic" it is that the Iowa Evangelical Christian base has ABANDONED Dr. Ben Carson because of his "secret ethical flaws".
And Dr. Ben Carson will be polling at a PATHETIC 7.5 percent (Real Clear Politics average) by the time the November GOP Presidential Debate IV rolls around.
Qui Bono ?
Hillary Clinton, Yeb Bush, John Kasisch, Marco "Amnesty" Rubio, Donald Trump, Chris Christy, Mike Huckabee, Carley Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Brett Bair, George Will, Dr. Krauthammer, Michael Murdoch ...
and did I mention Donald Trump ?
Dr. Ben Carson's 2016 presidential campaign is "over".
Period.
.
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.