After he got "caught"?! Granted he over-simplified his remarks but facts are facts; do you really think he "lied" and intended to get away with a "lie" that could so easily be fact-checked? Or did he frame his comments lazily or carelessly and went back to expand them to better explain his position? His comment made total sense "in the context of history." Men with no experience in elective, federal office did honorably well and he is capable of the same. I only go to the lengths that the attack dogs go to...
Giddy, I don't know or care if he lied. Likely I think he was just completely ignorant. Either way it doesn't matter. It was only after he got caught being completely 100% wrong that he changed his post. His original thought made no mention of "federal". If you think that he did originally mean federal, then you should believe him to be an even bigger idiot because it makes no sense at all to talk about "federal" experience when "federal" didn't exist. That's the point only an idiot would try and make, and it doesn't speak well of anyone that would try and defend it. Talking about having no experience in something that had never existed means less than nothing. If you think that somehow makes a valid point, then I don't know what to say to you. Geez giddy. do yourself a favor and give up on this.
So the two choices are lying or idiocy? Okay, that's fair... The point Carson was making is 100% accurate and true. One need not have experience in an elected federal office to be successful. Others have done it. In fact, that is the way that they envisioned it... rather than a "permanent" professional political class that has led us down the garden path. Or has the crux of the criticism against Carson been that he had not been a state Congressman or Senator from the great state of Maryland? Yeah, right.
Yeah when he was wrong on 100% of the people he was talking about when he claimed that all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence never held elected office. Then he either is lying or was completely ignorant of the actual facts. Those are the only two choices for anyone who was 100% wrong. The fact that it was Carson doesn't change that. It has nothing to do with fair. It has to do with history and Carson's inability to grasp the concept or else a total willingness to lie and misrepresent it. Carson can try and make the point that one doesn't need federal experience. That's fine. But if he's going to use an example to illustrate that point, the example should at least back up what he's claiming it does. If he was was talking about lacking fed experience not being a big deal, and he decided to use something that existed before there was a federal govt. to prove that, then that is pure idiocy. If of course he was talking about elected experience like he actually said in his original writing, and would make sense (if what he claimed was actually the truth) then it wouldn't be idiocy. But a bunch of folks who were career politicians and dedicated to a career in government and obviously didn't see that as a bad thing signed the Declaration of Independence. So to use that as an example for the point makes no sense at all. You're inability to see this is absolutely astonishing. It's downright humorous.
The Giddy 12 Step Program: 1. Giddy posts something off of Facebook with minimal or no commentary 2. People point out that said regurgitated Facebook post's Points A, B, and C are inaccurate 3. Giddy says no, you are just biased 4. People point out exactly how said post's Points A, B and C are false 5. Giddy says no, then modifies Points A and C to be Point D 6. People point out exactly how Point D is false 7. Giddy says no, you are just biased 8. People point out to Giddy that A, B, C and D are still wrong, using evidence and facts and logic 9. Giddy is unimpressed. Normal people are frustrated. 10. Giddy starts over, and reiterates Points A, B and/or C, without acknowledging any previous criticism 11. People shake their virtual heads in disbelief 12. Giddy posts something off of Facebook with minimal or no commentary
Beautifully accurate. You could extend this 12-step program to few more of our Clutchfans family who also enjoy copying and pasting from Facebook, including those that absolutely love changing the title of articles or clarifying facts to meet their preexisting belief systems.
Only problem here is that I'm the one who posted the FaceBook post and pointed up that it was edited. Other than that: GOOD JOB! I offer a very plausible reason for the editing and the rest of you just see it as further evidence of lying or ignorance or both in a candidate that falls outside of your normal party affiliation. GOOD JOB, again! Yes, Giddy is unimpressed...
Yes, step 10 but sometimes he skips Step 11 and does a "bait and switch". I used to think he was a bot of some sort to generate traffic.
This post should be it's own sticky thread that is locked so nobody can comment on it, and it sits there always at the top of D&D
Except Trump, the Republicans have a fundamental lack of imagination: [rQUOTEr]Jeb Bush, in Response to Internet Meme, Says He Would Kill Baby Hitler[/rQUOTEr]
Which is worse, a predictable troll or people that continue to feed the troll? There are plenty of posters in the D&D that have no intentions of having a rational discussion about anything and yet people continue to argue with them. If people would start ignoring these people, and there is an ignore feature just for that, then there could actually be some debate and discussion here. I have a feeling that the people feeding the trolls get off on it just as much as the trolls though.
Feeding trolls is bad, but giddy is different than a troll. He's actually trying to engage in discussion with posters who have different view points, at least most of the time I believe he is.
Asking the softball questions...what we really need to know is if he'd rather fight one horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses.
