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.

majorspark;1805930 wrote: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.

BoatShoes;1806043 wrote:Hillary Rodham Clinton, The First of Her name, Defender of Children, Protector of the Homeland and Mother of Lies uses Machiavellian cunning that would make John Adams proud.

BoatShoes;1806046 wrote:George Mason University is a conservative institution and thereby tainted just like political based on your own reasoning. Uh oh Jmog.

Further let us consider Jmog's various standards of proof and evidence and laugh.

1. He believes a throw away line about a behemoth in the book of Job is sufficient evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men.

2. He considers 1 study to be PROOF that politifact is liberal and untrustworthy

3. He rejects the overwhelming evidence for human generated emissions creating a greenhouse effect like that on Venus which leads to anthropogenically driven Climate Change and DEMANDS the most stringent confidence intervals before he would even consider it....(which of course he does not demand when proving dinosaurs lived on humans with an Ark and that politifact is untrustworthy.


Basically a perfect example of someone who shifts his standards of proof to confirm his biases and preconceptions. To add sugar on top he is smart and uses his being an engineer....er....scientist....to justify doing so and alleviate that painful cognitive dissonance.

BoatShoes;1806046 wrote:George Mason University is a conservative institution and thereby tainted just like political based on your own reasoning. Uh oh Jmog.

Further let us consider Jmog's various standards of proof and evidence and laugh.

1. He believes a throw away line about a behemoth in the book of Job is sufficient evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men.

2. He considers 1 study to be PROOF that politifact is liberal and untrustworthy

3. He rejects the overwhelming evidence for human generated emissions creating a greenhouse effect like that on Venus which leads to anthropogenically driven Climate Change and DEMANDS the most stringent confidence intervals before he would even consider it....(which of course he does not demand when proving dinosaurs lived on humans with an Ark and that politifact is untrustworthy.


Basically a perfect example of someone who shifts his standards of proof to confirm his biases and preconceptions. To add sugar on top he is smart and uses his being an engineer....er....scientist....to justify doing so and alleviate that painful cognitive dissonance.

majorspark;1806058 wrote:We are in the context of 21st century American politics. Where we have things like recorded video where all can witness lies with their own eyes. But I guess when attempting to defend someone as reprehensible as Hillary is, maligning a man that has been dead for nearly two centuries is what one must resort to.

jmog;1806109 wrote:You actually got all 3 points wrong but why would I expect any less from BS.

jmog;1806125 wrote:A google search proves that only thinkprogress.org lists GM as progressive. Every other study on Google lists it as middle of the road, slightly liberal, or heavy libertarian (obviously a different spectrum than linear).

Sorry that you are wrong again unless you believe thinkprogress has no agenda or bias?

https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities?name=George%20Mason%20University

BoatShoes;1806136 wrote:I was messing with you Jmog because you always complain about ad hominem but attacking the source is ad hominem which you always do and did in this case.

jmog;1806256 wrote:You may want to look up the definition of ad hominem before you say I committed that logical fallacy. It is when one attacks the person not when one discredits a study or a source as biased.

O-Trap;1806293 wrote:Actually, if you're responding to a claim by attacking the source of a claim (even if it's a site, network, etc.) by simply saying it's a de facto biased source, that still would technically qualify as ad hominem.

jmog;1806294 wrote:I would think discrediting an "authority" would possibly be False Authority if the proof given was by another biased authority.

O-Trap;1806298 wrote:This could easily become an epistemic crisis.

If someone says, "X said Y," it would probably be better to ask about the foundation for X to say Y as opposed to issuing a blanket statement that X has no credibility, though.

Broken clocks and all ...

jmog;1806307 wrote:I always thought epistemic crisis involved world views and looking at the same information and coming up with equally valid conclusions that are vastly different from each other. All due to the difference in world view.

I understand how this could be viewed in a political view as well, but that also lends credibility to my original statement that politifact is left leaning as they nearly to the tee fine democrats "credible" and republicans "lying".

Simple statistics leads this to be a false conclusion but an epistemic crisis could explain it as well.

QuakerOats;1806375 wrote:Parents of 2 Benghazi victims suing Clinton --

The parents of two of the four Americans who died in the Benghazi attack in 2012 file a lawsuit against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, alleging her “extremely careless” handling of classified information contributed to their deaths.


Perhaps they can take a chunk of her hundreds of millions in money-laundered funds.