birdog1960

tasker did.

wouldn't want one. bad reviews and too expensive . I don't hate the guy regardless of color. I think he's purposely deceptive and holds some bizarre beliefs. I actually have an ex army doc partner and have met many military docs. I can tell you that they invariably consider themselves doctors first. their calling was/is medicine, not soldiering.

the public will be the ultimate judge. you wanna bet on him being our next prez?

sure. nothing has been written about Clinton and any of these issues. nor have there been senate hearings with massive media coverage. cmon! if you really believe that then you should be blaming the right wing propaganda machine for not doing there job well enough. from my perspective they are fulfilling their role.

no he clearly didn't have to be transparent ands open. he clearly wasn't

yes, he chose those very fine schools. but he didn't give that as the reason deciding against west point. he said it was to pursue medicine. and no, doctors in the military are doctors first. they just happen to be in the military often for the reason of tuition reimbursement and being able to afford the process. then it would have been more honest to just say so. he didn't. it would appear to an impartial observer that he intended to capitalize on a military association through his writings and interviews when he actually clearly decided against going into the military.

so back on topic, doesn't carsons explanation of his choice of medicine over west point appear disingenuous to you given that he could easily have done both?

americans ultimately made a decision on this in regards to Obama. they're still forming one on carson. let's see how it plays out.

yes, it matters. I speaks to his sincerity and integrity. and also unfortunately, either his poor regard for his readers' intelligence or his personal lack of intelligence regarding how repeated inaccuracies would be perceived. except that he could have done both. he could have gone to west point pre med (free, on a "scholarship"), gone to a civilian med school (paid for by the army) and then done a civilian or military residency. then paid back his time as an officer. I know cuz I almost chose the same path (x I never met daddy Westmoreland) and was actually accepted into the air force program for it.

and I would expect that if he were to repeat the story recently (Charlie rose) that he'd go back and check his facts and obtain a better understanding of the formal admissions and "scholarship" processes at military academies.

you put up 60 minutes. it's the equivalent of o'reilly: pulp for the masses. their actual news shows are fair to middling and they do actually employ degreed journalists.

and I will again direct you to pbs, npr. they do amazing things with relatively small budgets. AP, reuters, wash post , NYT, economist, and yes, even CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC, BBC, CBC employ real journalists. but of course they mostly went to one of those liberal universities for their degrees and are not to be trusted by anyone more right wing than jeb bush (which appears to be the vast majority of the current republican party).

can't take credit for the phrasing but the thoughts did independently come to mind. of course, the answer to this writers hypothetical is clear: these aren't so much journalistic news organizations but selective disseminators of the news (drudge being the worst example). they employ few if any true journalists that do investigative work. I suspect in part due to their disdain for the profession in general.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/09/ben_carson_barack_obama_and_bias_unraveling_the_rights_liberal_media_security_blanket/ Already we’re grappling with a spectacularly dumb premise. The mainstream media gave Obama “a pass,” argues Fund, as demonstrated by the fact that ABC News (a longstanding pillar of the mainstream media) broke the Reverend Wright story in the middle of the Democratic primary as opposed to the beginning. I’m not even sure what the supposed “bias” is supposed to be here – if there was interest in going easy on Obama, wouldn’t ABC have just sat on its hands instead of sending their chief investigative correspondent to poke around? And the network broke the Wright story just eight months before Obama would have to face John McCain in the general election. Fund has transformed a TV network’s explosive and damaging Wright scoop into an act of bias in favor of Barack Obama, and his only evidence is that the Wright story didn’t end Obama’s candidacy as it might have under different circumstances It doesn’t make any sense, and it actually does a better job as an indictment of the conservative media than anything else. Outlets like National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and the like exist because conservatives feel the mainstream media can’t be trusted to report the stories that really matter – stories like Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. If the “easily obtained” Wright tapes had the potential to end Obama’s candidacy and were just sitting there waiting to be exposed, then why didn’t John Fund or any other conservative reporter track down the hot scoop? Why did they wait for ABC to dig it up? This gets to a key contradiction in the right’s obsession with “liberal bias” in the media – many of the stories they accuse the media of ignoring to protect Obama were dug up by the “mainstream media” to begin with. When those stories failed to destroy Obama as a political figure, the only explanation available to conservatives was that the same outlets that broke them also somehow covered them up.It doesn’t make any sense, and it actually does a better job as an indictment of the conservative media than anything else. Outlets like National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and the like exist because conservatives feel the mainstream media can’t be trusted to report the stories that really matter – stories like Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. If the “easily obtained” Wright tapes had the potential to end Obama’s candidacy and were just sitting there waiting to be exposed, then why didn’t John Fund or any other conservative reporter track down the hot scoop? Why did they wait for ABC to dig it up? This gets to a key contradiction in the right’s obsession with “liberal bias” in the media – many of the stories they accuse the media of ignoring to protect Obama were dug up by the “mainstream media” to begin with. When those stories failed to destroy Obama as a political figure, the only explanation available to conservatives was that the same outlets that broke them also somehow covered them up.

but wait! I thought the media left him alone! this scrutiny is unique to carson per the cons here. do you disagree? so why mention the story in his autobiography and then in an interview with Charlie rose if he didn't think it an important event in his life? an important event to readers and voters? if it's that important, isn't it equally important that he be accurate about the circumstances? if anyone manufactured something here, it was carson. he likely knew that people out for red meat on the issue would never be satisfied.

wait! I thought Obama wasn't exposed to similar media scrutiny. yet he complained about it? why would he complain if it didn't happen? which is it?

he did this to himself: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ben-carson-created-mess-web-lies-article-1.2427808 On “Face the Nation” Sunday, John Dickerson shows a clip of Carson saying this to Charlie Rose: “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point, got to meet (Gen. William) Westmoreland, go to Congressional Medal of Honor dinners ...” When Dickerson then asks Carson to straighten out that version of things, Carson says, “Well, you notice I said, ‘was offered.’ I didn’t say I received it.” this isn't ancient history (unlike the pyramids). he's on record in multiple places. he clearly thinks it an important event to voters. and it is improtasnt. just not in the way he thought.

complaining about being mistreated isn't very presidential, now is it?

stop with the persecution complex. oh those poor, rich, influential, domineering conservative candidates! as I just pointed out, any front runner is going to be thoroughly investigated and mud will be raked. it's not like the conservative press has left Obama and Hillary alone. they've searched for every morsel of rancid, moldy bread crumb. and to a point they should. just don't cross the line into dishonesty. it's time for carson to put on the big boy panties

and you based this conclusion on actually reading the 165 articles or your preconceived notion of what "main stream media" would do? who is biased now?

except theta the media did: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-welcome-big-leagues-ben-carson-n459761 Carson told NBC's Chris Jansing. "Or if you can show me where that's happened with someone else, I will take that statement back." Well, here's our try: We found a combined 165 New York Times and Washington Post articles that were all (or partially) about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright between the time Obama first launched his presidential bid (Feb. 2007) and his 2008 victory (Nov. 2008). During that same time period, we found an additional 41 New York Times and Washington Post pieces on Obama and Bill Ayers. And from the start of her campaign (April 2015) until now, we discovered a combined 44 NYT/WaPo articles about Hillary Clinton and her email server. Our friend Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post even wrote a post entitled:"Why I've written 50 posts on Hillary Clinton's emails." Bottom line: When you're atop of the presidential polls, you're going to get scrutiny -- lots of it.

really? don't see it. but I did see a very bloody mouth guard he was biting in the huddle just before his first bomb. he had a facemask done to him the play before.. I thought maybe it was a psychological weapon type thing that was designed to look like that - kinda like the new zealand ruggers psyching out their opponents with the war chant. but that seems a lot more farfetched than a bleeding lip or tongue.

unless....

ask LA. that was his excuse for some inane posts on range rovers that I commented on.

wife has the flex model, I believe. button fell off after 6 months and latch fell off shortly after. awaiting free replacement (no hassles but still...) she loves it. she'll walk up and down the driveway if needed at the end of the day to get to her steps goal. it does alert her to new text messages and who is sending but I don't think it gives the message. I think I would buy a different brand if I were to buy one.