Replies

CNN interviewed Armstrong Williams early this evening. He gave as excellent a run down as could be given. Carson contracted four speeches over the course of 11 years for this company, through a speakers bureau. The company was looking for a neurosurgeon opinion on the product for a PBS Healthy Eating program.

Carson likes the product and takes the product. He is into natural remedies and foods as well as traditional medicine and diet. He was perfect for the Mannatech. He still likes the product, but got out of the contract for anymore speeches or productions because they came under investigation and he was opposed to the written script contents he was given in Las Vegas, where the promo speech was to be made. He did not give the speech at all and has not returned to them.

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.