It is apparent that you realize that Hillary Clinton and her words, actions and record are completely indefensible. Ergo, attack Trump.

QuakerOats;1805593 wrote:He was an absent senator, for what, 2 years. He is a community activist and a lawyer; probably the two things we need the least. And as you know, a senator comes from a different branch of government than a governor or president. As for President Reagan, his values, beliefs and record speak for themselves.

4 years a US senator. 8 years a State Senator. But, of course, you knew that.

I'm still surprised, even from our resident dipshit, that someone actually called Ronald Reagan a war hero lol

Might have gotten him confused with Audie Murphy? lol

Tom Hanks is probably my favorite war hero.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1805595 wrote:4 years a US senator. 8 years a State Senator. But, of course, you knew that.

That plus being a lawyer and a community agitator may explain the extra $10 trillion in debt that he just saddled you and the next 3 generations (at least) with, and no hope of a pathway to ever reduce it. And when rates rise it will consume most of the annual budget. It has always been said that we will fall from within, and he has done all he can to set the stage to make that happen.

QuakerOats;1805602 wrote:That plus being a lawyer and a community agitator may explain the extra $10 trillion in debt

I'm actually getting more interested in how much debt is privately held. The rest is, well, literally just printing money....not to ignore how ineffectively Obama spent the global deflation dividend.

Although concern there is if we are falling into a similar trap Japan has been mired in for 20+ years. I tend to think uber-low interest rates are a short-term fix only (less than 12-18 months) and any longer it actually becomes counterproductive.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/breaking-lead-attorney-dnc-fraud-case-found-dead-1-week-serving-dnc-papers/


strange ...............third dead person in 6 weeks with ties to the machine .....

QuakerOats;1805784 wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/breaking-lead-attorney-dnc-fraud-case-found-dead-1-week-serving-dnc-papers/


strange ...............third dead person in 6 weeks with ties to the machine .....

the Clinton body count is impressive.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1805417 wrote:How bout the NFL having to come out and say he lied about them sending him a letter about the debate schedule just this week. Just so casually lies like his doesn't care.
Hes getting killed by liar liar Hillary on politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

I don't disagree that Trump is a liar, but politifact has been proven to be left leaning in their "fact checking" over and over again, so I wouldn't use them as proof of who lies more/less.

jmog;1805825 wrote:I don't disagree that Trump is a liar, but politifact has been proven to be left leaning in their "fact checking" over and over again, so I wouldn't use them as proof of who lies more/less.

Well obviously nothing or no one is truly neutral. But feel free to provide other sites if you like?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1805831 wrote:Well obviously nothing or no one is truly neutral. But feel free to provide other sites if you like?

Reread what I posted, I said Trump is a liar. I just stated that citing Politifact is about as useful as citing drudge.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

Drudge does not write content.

jmog;1805834 wrote:Reread what I posted, I said Trump is a liar. I just stated that citing Politifact is about as useful as citing drudge.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

I'm saying you're free to post links to other sites that contradict what I'm saying if you like. That's fine you agree Trump is a liar, but you obviously had a problem with the source I used.. that's why I encouraged you to find others if you so chose to.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1805839 wrote:I'm saying you're free to post links to other sites that contradict what I'm saying if you like. That's fine you agree Trump is a liar, but you obviously had a problem with the source I used.. that's why I encouraged you to find others if you so chose to.

I found others that prove yours is biased, good enough.

jmog;1805853 wrote:I found others that prove yours is biased, good enough.

Do they contradict the assertion? If not, there's no reason to point out if a site has biases or not.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1805854 wrote:Do they contradict the assertion? If not, there's no reason to point out if a site has biases or not.

They contradict the assertion by proving bias. The assertion is that Trump lies more than Hillary. If the site is proven to have a liberal bias then the assertion is negated as crap.

jmog;1805858 wrote:They contradict the assertion by proving bias. The assertion is that Trump lies more than Hillary. If the site is proven to have a liberal bias then the assertion is negated as crap.

Which brings us full circle... Provide sources that contradict it you have a problem with it. It's not hard.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1805863 wrote:Which brings us full circle... Provide sources that contradict it you have a problem with it. It's not hard.

I already did, it wasn't hard, took 10 seconds.

I don't have to prove the opposite, just proving the original is wrong is good enough.

jmog;1805834 wrote:Reread what I posted, I said Trump is a liar. I just stated that citing Politifact is about as useful as citing drudge.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

If we're talking biases, then 2/3 of your sources are invalid, as humanevents and newsmax are both conservative sites. Huh, and after looking at the writer of the usnews column (Peter Roff), it seems like the stuff he writes there is from a conservative stance. Whoops! That's all 3!!!!

Right-wingers saying a site that posted something negative about them has to be biased. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!

Heretic;1805877 wrote:Right-wingers saying a site that posted something negative about them has to be biased. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!

In all fairness, most of the stuff that is written to paint Republican-leaners in a negative light is indeed biased.

But the opposite is also true. Most of the stuff written to paint Democrat-leaners in a negative light is also biased.

O-Trap;1805882 wrote:In all fairness, most of the stuff that is written to paint Republican-leaners in a negative light is indeed biased.

But the opposite is also true. Most of the stuff written to paint Democrat-leaners in a negative light is also biased.

Oh, I agree with that. I just find humor in the concept of using biased writers/sites in an attempt to prove other stuff is biased.

Heretic;1805877 wrote:If we're talking biases, then 2/3 of your sources are invalid, as humanevents and newsmax are both conservative sites. Huh, and after looking at the writer of the usnews column (Peter Roff), it seems like the stuff he writes there is from a conservative stance. Whoops! That's all 3!!!!

Right-wingers saying a site that posted something negative about them has to be biased. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!

They reference the George Mason University study and then give their opinion. The George Mason study was the point of the links.

All politicians pass along false information. Most of them likely doing so with the intent to deceive. But Hillary is a grade above all of them. She lied about being under fire in a combat zone. That's like lying about having cancer. These types of hideous lies for personal gain belittle all those who have suffered through these situations. People caught in these types of lies are normally shamed out of their positions in disgrace.

Yet Hillary is promoted to leader of the State Department where she orders men to a combat zone to set up a diplomatic mission without adequate protection. Two of them are subsequently killed along with two others trying to save their lives. Hillary then lies for political reasons about the motive of the attack which occurred weeks before a presidential election and has the object of her lies locked up in a federal prison.

She lies with such impunity and can shrug them off with simple statements. In the Benghazi situation it was "what difference at this point does it make". In Bosnia where she claimed she was under sniper fire, there was no greeting ceremony and she was told to duck and run to cars to take her to safety with a firm "now that is what happened". In the face of video showing the exact opposite it was dismissed with a couple of coughs and "I was sleep deprived". Now recently we all saw FBI Director Comey directly state Hillary's public statements on her email issue were lies. Chris Wallace replays some of his statements in front of Hillary and she lies again telling all of us we really did not just see Comey call her a liar. Then when asked by the press if she lied once again stated she "may have short-circuited".

jmog;1805898 wrote:They reference the George Mason University study and then give their opinion. The George Mason study was the point of the links.

gosh a ruddies now there is a non biased source, Center for Media and Public Affairs founded by Robert Richter who worked for the American Enterprise Institute and Fox News. The Center is funded by conservatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs