Ben Carson and the Holocaust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

We were TALKING about Nevada land and the Feds vs State. If you look it up, Bundy was willing and had been paying taxes to the state until they refused to take it. Again, Reid could have fixed the problem. How much of the land in Nevada do the Feds own, Jeff? More than 50%? 70%?

Sanders is a self-admitted socialist. You support Sanders. You are more than a big government guy - you want a government takeover via socialism. It's people like myself that want to maintain our Constitution and our law. Truth is truth.

It's not "Nevada land" - the state of Nevada does not own it, and Bundy's claim that he was "trying to pay the state of Nevada but they wouldn't take his money" is bogus. Nevada does not lease the land and has nothing to do with the grazing permit. Nevada also has no legal claim on the land, and this is specifically referenced in the Nevada State Constitution.

As for your comments about "socialism" - every time you throw that term around disparagingly it tells the world you don't know what "democratic socialism" i.e. Bernie Sanders means. Here's a hint - think Sweden (which has plenty of capitalism, private enterprise and entrepreneurs, luxury goods, multimillionaire magnates, and some of the highest living standards in the world) - if you're thinking of Maoist China or Soviet Russia you are totally on the wrong track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's also not forget the Gibson Guitar raids, in which wood was taken at gunpoint, not returned for two years, with no criminal charges filed. And Gibson had to settle otherwise the costs of the lawsuit would have been ridiculous.

Furthermore, the government admits there were inconsistencies in the policy from their end to begin with!

Further, the settlement states that the Government and Gibson "acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks" under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.

Statement from Gibson's CEO:


"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said, adding that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means," including what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Further, Gibson noted that the years-long investigation has cost taxpayers millions of dollars -- and put a "job-creating U.S. manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

Jump forward from that 2011 story of yours to a year later, in 2012... Turned out that Gibson had been making a lot of fake claims about supposed government abuse and how this "unjust" investigation was supposedly wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars for nothing. They ultimately admitted their wrongdoing and violations of the Lacey Act and paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement... http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/242357-gibson-guitar-agrees-to-pay-300000-to-settle-lacey-act-violations

Oooops. Guess you picked a really bad example of so-called government abuse there.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

I support Bernis Sanders. Sanders calls himself a socialist. Most actual socialists would have a good chuckle about that. "Socialism" in its strictest sense designates a relationship to the means of production. People such as yourself tend to use the term to describe any government program that you don't like, or if you are making an effort, any government program that involves redistribution of wealth. The US income tax system involves the redistribution of wealth. That has been found to be constitutional. Therefore, government programs that involve the redistribution of wealth are not inherently unconstitutional. "Socialism" as a socio-economic-political system didn't exist at the time of the Constitution and, therefore, couldn't be addressed. But, ownership by groups, communities, and the government has been found to be constitutional. So, I am a bit baffled about what you believe to be unconstitutional about the socialism. Nevertheless, even if the Constitution prevented socialism, much like it prevented female suffrage and allowed slavery, there are legal means to change it. So, even in that case, supporting socialism would not mean an unwillingness to support our laws.

As for Bundy, you have lots of excuses for his lawbreaking. You are welcome to all the excuses you can invent. It is still hypocritical to defend law breaking in the same post you accuse someone else of supporting law breaking.

Law says he has to pay, he should pay. Now can we deport I,leaks, given they are breaking the law, rather than give them benefits for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's also not forget the Gibson Guitar raids, in which wood was taken at gunpoint, not returned for two years, with no criminal charges filed. And Gibson had to settle otherwise the costs of the lawsuit would have been ridiculous.

Furthermore, the government admits there were inconsistencies in the policy from their end to begin with!

Further, the settlement states that the Government and Gibson "acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks" under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.

Statement from Gibson's CEO:


"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said, adding that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means," including what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Further, Gibson noted that the years-long investigation has cost taxpayers millions of dollars -- and put a "job-creating U.S. manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

Jump forward from that 2011 story of yours to a year later, in 2012... Turned out that Gibson had been making a lot of fake claims about supposed government abuse and how this "unjust" investigation was supposedly wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars for nothing. They ultimately admitted their wrongdoing and violations of the Lacey Act and paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement... http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/242357-gibson-guitar-agrees-to-pay-300000-to-settle-lacey-act-violations

Oooops. Guess you picked a really bad example of so-called government abuse there.

They paid to avoid expensive court costs. I kinda mentioned that. They get their rosewood in the same way Taylor and Martin get theirs. Where are the raids on Taylor and Martin? Only Gibson's CEO is a republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

We were TALKING about Nevada land and the Feds vs State. If you look it up, Bundy was willing and had been paying taxes to the state until they refused to take it. Again, Reid could have fixed the problem. How much of the land in Nevada do the Feds own, Jeff? More than 50%? 70%?

Sanders is a self-admitted socialist. You support Sanders. You are more than a big government guy - you want a government takeover via socialism. It's people like myself that want to maintain our Constitution and our law. Truth is truth.

It's not "Nevada land" - the state of Nevada does not own it, and Bundy's claim that he was "trying to pay the state of Nevada but they wouldn't take his money" is bogus. Nevada does not lease the land and has nothing to do with the grazing permit. Nevada also has no legal claim on the land, and this is specifically referenced in the Nevada State Constitution.

As for your comments about "socialism" - every time you throw that term around disparagingly it tells the world you don't know what "democratic socialism" i.e. Bernie Sanders means. Here's a hint - think Sweden (which has plenty of capitalism, private enterprise and entrepreneurs, luxury goods, multimillionaire magnates, and some of the highest living standards in the world) - if you're thinking of Maoist China or Soviet Russia you are totally on the wrong track.

Semantics. Sanders is a socialist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

I support Bernis Sanders. Sanders calls himself a socialist. Most actual socialists would have a good chuckle about that. "Socialism" in its strictest sense designates a relationship to the means of production. People such as yourself tend to use the term to describe any government program that you don't like, or if you are making an effort, any government program that involves redistribution of wealth. The US income tax system involves the redistribution of wealth. That has been found to be constitutional. Therefore, government programs that involve the redistribution of wealth are not inherently unconstitutional. "Socialism" as a socio-economic-political system didn't exist at the time of the Constitution and, therefore, couldn't be addressed. But, ownership by groups, communities, and the government has been found to be constitutional. So, I am a bit baffled about what you believe to be unconstitutional about the socialism. Nevertheless, even if the Constitution prevented socialism, much like it prevented female suffrage and allowed slavery, there are legal means to change it. So, even in that case, supporting socialism would not mean an unwillingness to support our laws.

As for Bundy, you have lots of excuses for his lawbreaking. You are welcome to all the excuses you can invent. It is still hypocritical to defend law breaking in the same post you accuse someone else of supporting law breaking.

Law says he has to pay, he should pay. Now can we deport I,leaks, given they are breaking the law, rather than give them benefits for it?

That's illegals.

[Anonymous]

Totally off topic but on 66 yesterday I saw a prius with a Ben Carson bumper sticker. Just struck me as such an off combo on the venn diagram of likely voters.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Totally off topic but on 66 yesterday I saw a prius with a Ben Carson bumper sticker. Just struck me as such an off combo on the venn diagram of likely voters.

It was likely a far-right Republican who wants to drive alone in the HOV lanes and couldn't care less about the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's also not forget the Gibson Guitar raids, in which wood was taken at gunpoint, not returned for two years, with no criminal charges filed. And Gibson had to settle otherwise the costs of the lawsuit would have been ridiculous.

Furthermore, the government admits there were inconsistencies in the policy from their end to begin with!

Further, the settlement states that the Government and Gibson "acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks" under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.

Statement from Gibson's CEO:


"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said, adding that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means," including what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Further, Gibson noted that the years-long investigation has cost taxpayers millions of dollars -- and put a "job-creating U.S. manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

Jump forward from that 2011 story of yours to a year later, in 2012... Turned out that Gibson had been making a lot of fake claims about supposed government abuse and how this "unjust" investigation was supposedly wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars for nothing. They ultimately admitted their wrongdoing and violations of the Lacey Act and paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement... http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/242357-gibson-guitar-agrees-to-pay-300000-to-settle-lacey-act-violations

Oooops. Guess you picked a really bad example of so-called government abuse there.

They paid to avoid expensive court costs. I kinda mentioned that. They get their rosewood in the same way Taylor and Martin get theirs. Where are the raids on Taylor and Martin? Only Gibson's CEO is a republican.

Sorry, but I'm seeing nothing but manufactured FOX BS on your end.

A.) Gibson ADMITTED wrongdoing and noncompliance to the Department of Justice.

B.) Gibson's CEO stated it was NOT politically motivated. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203554104576655273915372748

The fact that Gibson was singled out when other guitar makers use the same woods has fed speculation that the company was targeted--because it is not unionized, perhaps, or didn't donate enough to the Democratic Party.

"I don't think it's a political issue," Mr. Juszkiewicz says, shaking his head.

C.) The characterization of Gibson's CEO as a "Republican" seems a bit shaky given he has frequently and routinely contributed to Democrats, like Tennessee Congressman Jim Cooper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They paid to avoid expensive court costs. I kinda mentioned that. They get their rosewood in the same way Taylor and Martin get theirs. Where are the raids on Taylor and Martin? Only Gibson's CEO is a republican.

That's actually untrue. CF Martin does not buy Madagascar Rosewood or ebony. I guess you figured that you could just say it and no one would question what you wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's also not forget the Gibson Guitar raids, in which wood was taken at gunpoint, not returned for two years, with no criminal charges filed. And Gibson had to settle otherwise the costs of the lawsuit would have been ridiculous.

Furthermore, the government admits there were inconsistencies in the policy from their end to begin with!

Further, the settlement states that the Government and Gibson "acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks" under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.

Statement from Gibson's CEO:


"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said, adding that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means," including what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Further, Gibson noted that the years-long investigation has cost taxpayers millions of dollars -- and put a "job-creating U.S. manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

Jump forward from that 2011 story of yours to a year later, in 2012... Turned out that Gibson had been making a lot of fake claims about supposed government abuse and how this "unjust" investigation was supposedly wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars for nothing. They ultimately admitted their wrongdoing and violations of the Lacey Act and paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement... http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/242357-gibson-guitar-agrees-to-pay-300000-to-settle-lacey-act-violations

Oooops. Guess you picked a really bad example of so-called government abuse there.

They paid to avoid expensive court costs. I kinda mentioned that. They get their rosewood in the same way Taylor and Martin get theirs. Where are the raids on Taylor and Martin? Only Gibson's CEO is a republican.

Sorry, but I'm seeing nothing but manufactured FOX BS on your end.

A.) Gibson ADMITTED wrongdoing and noncompliance to the Department of Justice.

B.) Gibson's CEO stated it was NOT politically motivated. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203554104576655273915372748

The fact that Gibson was singled out when other guitar makers use the same woods has fed speculation that the company was targeted--because it is not unionized, perhaps, or didn't donate enough to the Democratic Party.

"I don't think it's a political issue," Mr. Juszkiewicz says, shaking his head.

C.) The characterization of Gibson's CEO as a "Republican" seems a bit shaky given he has frequently and routinely contributed to Democrats, like Tennessee Congressman Jim Cooper.

I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Well, if "everyone" knows it, that settles it. Certainly, we should trust "everyone" rather than what we read in the press.

BTW, I am also very familiar with the case. I visited the Memphis plant a few days before it was raided. I own two Gibson guitars and followed the case very closely. The violations discovered in the second round of raids were clearly justified by the false paperwork used to import the wood. It turned out that the violations were not that severe and that the Indian government probably didn't care in the first place. That is probably why the case was settled favorably to Gibson.

Henry Juszkiewicz made a huge mistake by running to the right-wingers and acting like a victim of an over-zealous government. He alienated guitar players who care about the environment. In contrast, companies like Taylor and Martin who are much more forward thinking. That's why I bought a Taylor at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's also not forget the Gibson Guitar raids, in which wood was taken at gunpoint, not returned for two years, with no criminal charges filed. And Gibson had to settle otherwise the costs of the lawsuit would have been ridiculous.

Furthermore, the government admits there were inconsistencies in the policy from their end to begin with!

Further, the settlement states that the Government and Gibson "acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks" under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.

Statement from Gibson's CEO:


"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said, adding that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means," including what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Further, Gibson noted that the years-long investigation has cost taxpayers millions of dollars -- and put a "job-creating U.S. manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

Jump forward from that 2011 story of yours to a year later, in 2012... Turned out that Gibson had been making a lot of fake claims about supposed government abuse and how this "unjust" investigation was supposedly wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars for nothing. They ultimately admitted their wrongdoing and violations of the Lacey Act and paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement... http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/242357-gibson-guitar-agrees-to-pay-300000-to-settle-lacey-act-violations

Oooops. Guess you picked a really bad example of so-called government abuse there.

They paid to avoid expensive court costs. I kinda mentioned that. They get their rosewood in the same way Taylor and Martin get theirs. Where are the raids on Taylor and Martin? Only Gibson's CEO is a republican.

Sorry, but I'm seeing nothing but manufactured FOX BS on your end.

A.) Gibson ADMITTED wrongdoing and noncompliance to the Department of Justice.

B.) Gibson's CEO stated it was NOT politically motivated. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203554104576655273915372748

The fact that Gibson was singled out when other guitar makers use the same woods has fed speculation that the company was targeted--because it is not unionized, perhaps, or didn't donate enough to the Democratic Party.

"I don't think it's a political issue," Mr. Juszkiewicz says, shaking his head.

C.) The characterization of Gibson's CEO as a "Republican" seems a bit shaky given he has frequently and routinely contributed to Democrats, like Tennessee Congressman Jim Cooper.

I'm very familiar with thus case and the CEOs trust me, what the press says and what happened is not congruent. Everyone knows he was singled out, targeted, and hung out to dry.

Trust you? Are you saying that you are friends with Christian Martin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't anyone in the media talking about Ben Carson's mental illness? This guy is legit off-the-deep-end. It's pretty obvious he has high functioning Alzheimer's or something similar.

I wish we could get a neuropsych eval for him. He does remind me of my grandparents and dad when they started to develop dementia. Some of the things he says are well thought out and make sense and other things he says are so far out there I can't imagine he's in his right mind. Plus his affect is so flat most of the time. Something is off.