http://www.yale.edu/perception/Brian/courses/Perception-Syllabus.htmlWhat about the college class?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/ben-carsons-psychology-test-story-gets-even-weirderhttp://www.yale.edu/perception/Brian/courses/Perception-Syllabus.html
"Show me somebody, even from your business, the media, who is 100 percent accurate in everything that they say that happened 40 or 50 years ago," Carson told ABC's George Stephanopoulos by phone. "Please show me that person. I will sit at their knee and I will learn from them."
Carson wrote in his 1990 autobiography that he'd been named the most honest student in a Yale psychology class, "Perceptions 301," because he was the only one not to walk out after the professor hoaxed the class by telling them they'd have to retake their final exams. However, a Wall Street Journal article published Friday found no record of the class nor of a Yale Daily News article that Carson said was written about the incident.
Speaking Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Carson admitted that the course name that appeared in his book was inaccurate, but said his campaign had found the student newspaper article and would release it.
"I wonder why, with all their investigating abilities, they can’t find it. We found it and we’re going to be putting it out," he said. "The course, I guess was called Psychology 1-0. You know, when you write a book with a co-writer and you say that there was a class, a lot of time they’ll put a number or something just to give it more meat. You know, obviously, decades later, I’m not going to remember the course number."
Later on Sunday, Carson shared a syllabus for a 2002 psychology class called "Perception" on his Facebook page, writing "Allow me also to do the research for the Wall Street Journal reporter. Here is a syllabus for the class you claim never existed. Still waiting on the apology."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-memoir-exaggerations_563f5dd3e4b0307f2cadc60c
You should be defending this man - I would defend anyone if they were wronged, even if they weren't on my team. One's humanity slips away the moment we turn to look in a different direction.
You aren't able to see with those eyes, maybe in time child, maybe in time, God willing.http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/ben-carsons-psychology-test-story-gets-even-weirder
He points to a syllabus that isn't his? Talk about a non-denial. I will wait for the article he claims to have found.
I'm sure nobody really cares about those questions you answered, that's why they are at the bottom of the list. Actually, had I had more time I would have photoshopped those last few pieces of info out.Well, I'll answer the attorney one for you because searching the Illinois attorney registration system appears to be too difficult for whoever created that cute little picture.
https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp
Michelle's license is voluntarily inactive likely because she's not practicing or living there full time anymore so keeping the license active would cost time and money that she wouldn't need to spend anyway. See, attorneys have to attend continuing learning classes each year to keep their license active (most states are 15 credits per year) and that can be a pain in the butt particularly when you don't live in that state.
As a bonus, the President himself appears to have put his license into retired status because he has no plans to go back to practicing law after his presidency whereas Michelle likely hasn't decided her post-White House plans and may want to resume her law practice and renew her license.
Also, an attorney's client list can also be privileged information if the client wants it to be so most attorneys would just decline to tell you out of courtesy to their former clients. You may not know this but attorneys continue to owe their past clients certain duties, a duty of confidentiality among them. Now, if they represented them in a court proceeding then it would be public record but if it was just advice or any other matter then it wouldn't be.
If I wanted to spend any more time on this I could go to the Illinois court records and tell you at least some of the people he represented in court but I've already spent more time on this than it even deserved.
I'm just going to bump this to the front. I'd (and most of the country) also like to know . . .Not a fan of Carson, but can someone tell me why we're not supposed to talk about Benghazi, Clinton's misuse of unofficial channels for conducting official business and what not, but somehow, Mr. Carson's classes that took place before half the people on this forum were even born are such a subject of debate and discussion?
Where's Bernie when you need him?
Oh, i'll allow it for UncleBob, this is my thread after all, so please - Do feel free to answer him . . So he was saying, you know, about Hillary Clinton and such . .Just a guess but people are not going to let you change the subject in a Ben Carson thread.
You won't get an answer.Oh, i'll allow it for UncleBob, this is my thread after all, so please - Do feel free to answer him . . So he was saying, you know, about Hillary Clinton and such . .![]()
Like why are you even on this forum? Oh yes you are a troll/libtard.Literally can't be bothered.
Oh, i'll allow it for UncleBob, this is my thread after all, so please Msut77 - Do feel free to answer him . . So he was saying, you know, about Hillary Clinton and such . .![]()
"The Obama nonsense" - To say anything would be a waste of time. It's apparent you(and many)will bat for and defend the left had the o administration claim to be the embodiment of evil itself.Kind of hard to take "We're not allowed to talk about Clinton" seriously when we've had multiple congressional hearings, subpoenas and an FBI investigation. After the third House committee investigating Carson, there might be some sort of comparison there.
The Obama nonsense needs to show that there is something unusual going on. I mean, my college, medical and parish records aren't open either without my consent and the birth certificate thing was settled ages ago to anyone who doesn't wrap their head in tin foil.
Bingo, I'm willing to bet most of these were someone calling or showing up and asking for his records and they were told those weren't for release to the public. "Oh so they're sealed"I suppose that, if you can't actually provide evidence that there is anything unusual, you can always fall back on trying to make it my fault.
Does Columbia College generally allow third parties to peruse their student's records and papers? Were Obama's records "SEALED!" or is it business as usual?
You could have just admitted that I'm right :lol:More importantly...
That's actually part of the "SEALED" list which is especially funny since federal law prohibits their release.We should probably be asking for his medical records too
Does this mean we're not supposed to take Sanders, or all the applause and kudos he got during/after the debate, seriously either?Kind of hard to take "We're not allowed to talk about Clinton" seriously[...]
First most of the outlets like WSJ that have tried to take apart Bernies plans leave a lot of factors out. I am not saying just taxing the super rich will be enough, nor am I claiming one way or another to know economics well enough to have a truly informed opinion(I would be shocked if anyone at this board knew economics that well). I am just pointing out that when it comes to Presidential plans and the media I take it all with a grain of salt. Most of these plans are not fleshed out enough yet and the media does such a half assed job pushing candidates on that fact and a worse job still making the average American understand these plans.18 trillion dollars his plan costs, even Bill Maher thinks it's insane. The man is so batshit crazy I wouldn't even be terribly upset if he won - just to see what thehappens and i'm conservative through and through. He already admitted taxing the 1% isn't enough - not even 100%. He admitted he'd have to go lower - top 10% making $150,000 a year. You would have to cut military spending to 0. And it still wouldn't be enough.
I remember the last time this came up someone came in saying his family pulled in about $150,000 and they were basically just making ends meet because they lived in an expensive area. Then someone pointed out that he had just posted a week or two before a thread about buying a new TV and he had a $5,000 budget. Of course his reply was that he works hard so he deserves nice things, which is true, definitely. Rather, the question is how you can be "just making ends meet" but have an extra $5,000 for a TV.First most of the outlets like WSJ that have tried to take apart Bernies plans leave a lot of factors out. I am not saying just taxing the super rich will be enough, nor am I claiming one way or another to know economics well enough to have a truly informed opinion(I would be shocked if anyone at this board knew economics that well). I am just pointing out that when it comes to Presidential plans and the media I take it all with a grain of salt. Most of these plans are not fleshed out enough yet and the media does such a half assed job pushing candidates on that fact and a worse job still making the average American understand these plans.
Putting that aside though I want to ask how making $150,000 is not considered rich in this country? Its not super rich or wealthy beyond your wildest dreams, but if you constitenly are pulling $150,000 you can have a whole brood of children and still live well. Meanwhile when you cut that number in half you can start to find some families struggling, cut it in half again and almost every family is struggling. I am sorry but I do not see why taxing people that make $150,000 a year a little more would be a bad thing. It would provide needed stability and spending power to the American populace. We are a consumer based economy and putting money back into the hands of the struggling poor and middle class is a good thing.
Finally I want to point out that I find it disgusting that NO ONE and I mean freaking NO ONE ever debates this from a moral stand point. It is always about the dollars and cents and if our economy would do worse or not. We never just ask the questions, how many people are starving? How many people are sick? How many people are in pain? How much will it take to fix that? Ok now lets discuss what that will do to our economy and for once then have an honest discussion if human life is WORTH that hit to the economy. We skip right to the economics and people flip theout over potential costs(which they dont even understand)and forget these are people. Funny thing is that the rise in self driving cars and other advanced machines will likely keep driving people out of the work force. I can easily see a future where there are no fast food workers or drivers, thats a lot of extra mouths needing feeding and a lot less work to feed those mouths. We are likely over the next 30 years going to be forced to either let a lot of people fall through the cracks into extreme poverty and suffering, or we will HAVE to reform our entitlement system, the way its funded and the way we look at it.
All that said....man again how is $150,000 not rich? Id be living in the woods by the lake with a whole mess of chitlins with that kind of money, maybe even take on a second wife....I kid I kid!
There is absolutely nothing here other than rambling incoherent jealousy that a poor kid got a ham sandwich.It's kinda like an argument that Joe Rogan had with Gavin Mcinnes (co-founder of Vice). Joe posits the facile argument the school should dole out a free lunch - $1.80 for a ham sandwich for a kid that can't afford it that's in possession of the school while the kid is there. The counter argument is that a parent who can't afford a ham sandwich is incompetent. And we have bigger problems - whats the kid eating for dinner? Also, people aren't really starving in America these days.
Taxes are already progressive, you say you want the 150,000ers to pay a little more. They already pay 83% of total income tax. I'm saying Liberalism is not feasible nor pragmatic. We've had 7 years of President Obama and you take the moral high-ground now and tell me people are starving. I've rather have a society where the rich are richer and the middle class is richer - than having everyone equal.
I feel you didnt even read my post....It's kinda like an argument that Joe Rogan had with Gavin Mcinnes (co-founder of Vice). Joe posits the facile argument the school should dole out a free lunch - $1.80 for a ham sandwich for a kid that can't afford it that's in possession of the school while the kid is there. The counter argument is that a parent who can't afford a ham sandwich is incompetent. And we have bigger problems - whats the kid eating for dinner? Also, people aren't really starving in America these days.
Taxes are already progressive, you say you want the 150,000ers to pay a little more. They already pay 83% of total income tax. I'm saying Liberalism is not feasible nor pragmatic. We've had 7 years of President Obama and you take the moral high-ground now and tell me people are starving. I've rather have a society where the rich are richer and the middle class is richer - than having everyone eq
HAHA...I remember that thread. It was Javery and I think he was pulling in about $250k solo as a lawyer that also ended up adding an additional floor to his house too...along with having a third kid. Funny thing about him is that I never got the sense that he was really into politics(or conservative for the matter) and only based his opinions on who would tax him more.I remember the last time this came up someone came in saying his family pulled in about $150,000 and they were basically just making ends meet because they lived in an expensive area. Then someone pointed out that he had just posted a week or two before a thread about buying a new TV and he had a $5,000 budget. Of course his reply was that he works hard so he deserves nice things, which is true, definitely. Rather, the question is how you can be "just making ends meet" but have an extra $5,000 for a TV.
Just making ends meet is having to decide whether to buy groceries or pay your electric bill.
Yes, that's who it was. I had actually forgotten.HAHA...I remember that thread. It was Javery and I think he was pulling in about $250k solo as a lawyer that also ended up adding an additional floor to his house too...along with having a third kid. Funny thing about him is that I never got the sense that he was really into politics(or conservative for the matter) and only based his opinions on who would tax him more.
LOLZ..found the thread and see a bunch of people reading it with me!Yes, that's who it was. I had actually forgotten.
For some reason I thought it was $150,000 but in either situation it still applies about him complaining about just making ends meet.
I kinda want to know what sort of school lunch ham sandwich costs $1.80. Are they buying individual premium lunch meat packages at the grocery store?There is absolutely nothing here other than rambling incoherent jealousy that a poor kid got a ham sandwich.
It still absolutely blows my mind that Carson's career was as a neurosurgeon. Every day that passes he is going down a road of making W look like a genius in comparison.I liked the Carson campaign response that the NYT was "taking advantage of an elderly gentleman". Because he's good enough to advise the Carson campaign but too senile to give an interview.
The Carson campaign has not said that Clarridge is not an adviser, it said that he is not "one of Dr. Carson's top advisers". Whether that's true or not, the fact remains that Clarridge has had meetings with Carson about foreign policy and has found Carson woefully inept in learning and retaining the information. Hell, even if all he does is sit around the meetings and has no official advisory role at all, he's still watching Carson act confused and uncertain about what's going on in the foreign policy scene during the meetings. Trying to handwave away Clarridge as "not an adviser" misses the point entirely.