References to what generals say about taking a place in the West of Iraq, near Kurdish areas, for instance – I heard a similar scenario from Admiral McCraken (the retired special ops commander when Bin Laden was killed and taken), interviewed on Charlie Rose, PBS show [atranscript ought to be up online, if they are still doing them this season].

MDL writes “his view on pyramids is odd….”

My understanding from the fracas is that it is mentioned as a “possibility.”

Pre-Roman Biblical history, for me, gets sketchy – there is a great absence of literature to cross check claims of fact. Therefore, most of the narrative goes literary tropes and interpretation of patterns assumed as fatcs, bearing on theological point scoring.

Do YOU – MDL – REALLY want to go there? Because I’m far too unversed to attempt to challenge those who are.

If a doctor wants to claim a “possibility” in a forest of them about matters bearing on God – a belief I don’t share, anyway – why should I care? I only care if it leads to harming self or others.

Can you tell me how Carson has raised pyramids as granaries to this level of importance today? Because I can’t!

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

The left does not have a political argument thus they use ad hominem attacks. And you Trump supporters, take a good look at what your fellow does. Almost all of his attacks have been against fellow Republican candidates and they have all been personal.

How would someone “accept” the fact that the media might report bad things about him/her? By not criticizing them for it? By not answering them or defending him/herself? By not saying the media is lying or distorting, if you think they’re lying and distorting?

What is this “acceptance” thing?

Carson’s never been my first choice–I prefer Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio, maybe even Christie in some ways. But I can see quite clearly that the media charges so far against Carson have been ridiculous, and I think Carson has fought back quite well.

No candidate would, or should, “accept” what the media does when the media distorts or lies or exaggerates.

Interesting distortion. Carson didn’t say the media is wrong to question his violent past. The belt buckle story was a story of redemption—ever hear of redemtion? I wrote about the story before the recent controversy ever erupted, here.

Carson is pointing out that the media is questioning the story by doing things that cannot possibly authenticate it and then calling him a liar when those things fail to authenticate it. It’s about lies, not violence or lack thereof.

As for the word scholarship, it turns out that West Point itself used to use the word in its recruiting ads. As usual, the MSM fails to exercise due diligence when attacking a black conservative.

As do you.