You're right, I wasn't.

who is she NOT having SEX with i wanna Know

kinda reminds me of Al Bundy doing anything to avoid
going upstairs with PEG.....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-dono...075420856.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

So the AP based the story on the facts available and the Clinton News Network says it's 100% inaccurate because they based the story only using available information and didn't include the unavailable information.

So where is the proof of the overestimate the amount of non government people who got to have a meeting with Hillary Clinton?
What a surprise.
Looks like they are waiting until after the election to release any more information that could prove whether the AP was overstating or under stating the influence a donation to the Clinton Foundation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-clinto...-election.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes Spence, the AP is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

Why would the AP question Hilary? Anyone who can laugh in the face of that sniper fire she claims to have come under, is clearly above reproach.

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

Spence, there is an email from a foundation employee to Hilary's secstate email. In it, the foundation employee says that the prince of Bahrain (who gave $32million to the foundation) is "a good friend of ours". Coincidentally, after this email, Hilary met with the guy and sold him weapons.

Also, Weiner's wife was a paid employee of the State Dept, and the foundation, at the same time.

There is no email where Hilary says that you have to pay to get access to her. But there is certainly the appearance, once again, of impropriety.

And again, there is no earthly reason why foreign donations are acceptable when she was secstate, but inappropriate as POTUS. Secstate is a very powerful position, maybe you can take high school civics and bone up on that.

and sheeple still defend her......just call a spade a spade. lips moving? - she's lying.

why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing with all theses illegal activities that the Clinton crime family Have seeming committed for years ... but post rumor and conjecture as Fact over and over and over .. then when asked to support their claims or shoot holes in their assertions they get responses like.. and sheeple still defend her

sadly there seem to be more Sheeple on the right if we use the term fairly in we dont need any stinking proof crowd

we just know it to be true !

and yet trump remains untouched in this forum no matter what he says or does .. its very telling

wdmso- had she not been caught in many lies? do you honestly believe that her and bill are not shady characters in their dealings since Arkansas? and trump? I think he's a loud mouthed idiot- I'll take that over Clinton any day and twice on Tuesdays.

Sheeple :uhuh: - Every independent fact checker rates Trump as the most dishonest presidential candidate in either party for the past many, many years.

"why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing "

I see no irrefutable evidence that she ever committed a crime. But wrongdoing? You betcha.

There is videotape of her claiming she came under sniper fire on that overseas trip, when we know that didn't happen. And she still won't admit she lied. If such a lie means that Brian Williams is unfit to read news off a teleprompter, maybe it means she's unfit to be POTUS.

There's video evidence that she denied that Bill was cheating on her. Instead she claimed that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way. That means either she's a liar, or she genuinely believes that (in which case, she is insane).

We know there is video evidence that she attacked the victims of her husband's predation. Some feminist.

Regarding Benghazi, we know she flip-flopped about the root cause of the attack. By a stunning coincidence, every time she made a public statement, she said it was a spontaneous reaction to a video (and therefore not something she can be blamed for). In her private statements to Chelsea and others, she concedes it was terrorism. When pressed on the inconsistency, she said "what does it matter". To most people, the truth matters.

regarding the emails, we know she told multiple lies. She said she turned over all the emails (except the thousands that the FBI found on their own). She said she sent none that were flagged as classified at the time (except the ones that she sent which were flagged at the time). She said all the remaining emails were not related to work - wrong. Then she blames the nearest convenient black guy - Colin Powell.

While being investigated, her husband gets on the attorney generals plane for a chat. Two days later, the DOJ announces no charges. Immediately after, the Clinton campaign states that they would consider keeping her on as attorney general. No quid pro quo there, nope, not at all.

Now, the foundation. Is there direct evidence that you had to donate to see her? Of course not. Are there a lot of big donors who were able to see her, during her time as SecState? Yep. Does it have the appearance of impropriety? Yep.

She's not a murderer. But she has zero morals.

It's simple, us "uneducated" folks can see the writing on the wall. You don't amass a fortune of $200 million , when your only job has been public service , without doing shady things . She is corrupt , it's not that hard to avoid " evidence " when The Department of Justice is also corrupt . You my friend are extremely naïve .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear a lot of Trump voters, like me, admit that he's a crass, obnoxious jerk...but that we are voting for him because his policies are way more in-line with our values, than her policies.

I don't hear many Hilary supporters, able to concede that she is prone to any moral lapses. Liberals don't like to concede anything. Ever.

What a choice. God help us.

this gets funnier every time you write it...seriously :rotf2:

I know, it is amazing how blind people are! Maybe Sheeple?

When you look at "independent" fact checkers "ratings" over time, you notice patterns that don't exactly look "independent." Who checks the fact checkers? When did they become God?

As far as presidential candidates go, they are caught in a warp in which, for that time, they are supposed to convince a hundred million people that they have "answers" to what are, for the most part, the wrong questions. It is that, unholy, yet peculiarly sacred in its own recurring way, time when we expect to hear the hoped for fabrications on how the country will be "fixed."

We don't really expect that the promises will be kept, that what is said is actually true, we just hope that it convinces enough voters to put the candidate of our prejudicial choice into the position of giving us what we think we want.

Except for the minority of "purists" who insist on being true to constitutions and such--to an actual predictable, agreed upon system of government. But the purists don't really count when it's time to choose between fundamental truths and getting stuff. It is difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who is interested in getting stuff, especially "free" stuff. And whatever lies it takes to convince those voters that they're going to get stuff will be forgotten if their guys win. And if they don't get their stuff right away, or the stuff isn't as good as promised, there's the next round of presidential candidates to make it happen, or even make it better. All they need to do is say the right things, make the right promises to most of the different "constituencies."

Is there really such a thing as a "lie" when it comes to politics? Isn't it true that you can tell when a politician is lying--when his lips are moving? So when is a politician the most "dishonest" one? When her lips move more than the others?

Lying in political campaigns is a unique beast, apparently an acceptable one. Lying in your personal life is another matter. Between Hillary and Trump, who lies more outside of campaigning is probably not quantifiable.

And is sarcasm a lie?

Good lord, that is something that cannot be measured accurately, unless they are analyzing every single thing the person has ever said. How do they even quantify this? Let me guess, they take a "sample" of statements made recently. If that's the case, then the honesty value depends entirely on which statements are considered, and which are not.

If Hilary gives a speech and mentions the "war on women" crap, is that considered a lie? When she says I am anti-woman, is that a lie? if not, who cares what the study says.

Let's say Trump is a liar - fine. The point is, none of the left-leaning folks here, can bring themselves to criticize her about anything.

They are both morally repugnant. She's a little more slick about it.

Go do a search and see how they measure the lies - Trump was rated more dishonest then every candidate (in fact, the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates - So I guess that invalidates the work they do).

I criticize Hillary but if you're left of center here you're basically a Trotskyists or a Maoist so there is little point in partaking.

:huh:

this is why we have Hillary v. Trump

another page of more of the same. say it enough and its got be true ...

The right has been after them since Arkansas and thats my point and haven't put bat to ball once .. so the right is incompetent and completely unable to find anything ? even the Russians and Asange assisting them ..or are the Clintons Master criminals ?

and you need a new tin foil hat :spin:

Master criminals who have been skirting the law for a long time. What amazes me is how anyone can support her.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-fire/?ref=yfp

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/29...earing?ref=yfp

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politi...algeria-haiti/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Could someone please explain what the "center" is. Is there a centrist agenda? Is there a centrist policy? Is there a centrist form of government? (Oh, it can be argued that the Constitution is a center of sorts, but who follows that outworn piece of paper?)

Trotskyism was a sort of center. Maybe between Stalinist and Leninist. Isn't Maoism the great center? Didn't Mao say "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend"?

My gosh, how can we criticize the beautiful lies of such great men. After all, it was the wonderful form of government they created. That is what matters, not the lies.

So, if what hangs in the balance now, is the type of government that remains and is carried forth in the aftermath of the election, what is that type, and which candidate, or party can more likely deliver it? To me, that is the important question. Not who lies more. Nor who's better looking. Nor what gender. Nor who's more predictable. The peripheral fluff disintegrates before the force of government power. As does most everything else.

What form of government do you want?

And yet according to every poll , trust seams to be her biggest problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with you there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

lying just comes so easy to the Clintons. from the monica " the humidor" Lewinski to the I landed in a chopper under fire.

"Go do a search and see how they measure the lies"

No thanks. You posted the "truth survey" as meaningful, you can post the details if you want. There is no accurate way to measure who is the bigger liar between two people, unless you analyze every public statement ever made by both of them. That's not possible, so it's meaningless.

Please don't confuse my dismissal of a "truth ranking", as support of Trump's character. It's not. My problem isn't with who the bigger liar is, it's the fact that many liberals (Spence for example) deny that Hilary has any issues with telling the truth. Is she the biggest liar on the planet? Probably not. Is she a serial liar? Yep.

"the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates "

Shocker.

"So I guess that invalidates the work they do"

Nope. I'd say the same thing if the "model" said the Republicans were more honest. It is an absurd thing to try and quantify. It depends entirely on the sample of statements that are judged, and what constitutes a lie and what doesn't.

Paul, let me say this...it is literally impossible to be a liberal, at least in terms of economic policy, if one is honest. Absolutely impossible. Look at what the Democrats have done to our cities in the last 40 years, and tell me that liberalism hasn't been a disaster. But they won't admit it.

Look at what's going on in Chicago, where they practically re-enact the Battle Of Antietam every weekend. Those people don't deserve something different, something better? Yet if I say that, liberals call me a racist. Does that count as a lie in those surveys?

How can you begin to refute that, if you are being honest? Let's hear it!

"say it enough and its got be true ... "

OK, I list factual scandals and un-true statements she made. And the best you can do to refute that, is to say it's not valid, because people say it a lot?

Just because people say it a lot, doesn't make it false, either.

In other words, you know you cannot make one syllable of what I said wrong. But like most liberals, you sure can't concede that I have a point. So you try to say my points are invalid, not because I am wrong on the facts, but because people say it enough? That's evidence that what people are saying, is un-true?

Wow.

Bill Clinton was impeached and dis-barred. That's not "putting the bat to the ball"? Sorry, that's hitting it out of the park. What's amazing, is that his disciples don't care what he does.

It seems like you're blind to anything that doesn't fit your narrative and you're going along with what everyone else says.

Sounds exactly like the definition of "sheeple".

The road to prosperity is a blue state. For the most part the poor live in the cities and the cities are blue. Blacks on average are poorer than Whites. Blue states people have better health also. I think it comes down to the people in cities knowing that Repub. have no empathy or compassion for the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html

Paul, when I make a claim, it's my burden to support it. You brought up the lying survey, you can provide the details if you wish. But it's absurd.

"The road to prosperity is a blue state"

Right, right. Which is why those blue states, are all facing bankruptcy. The PEOPLE can thrive in a blue state. Here in CT, we have high average incomes. That has NOTIHNG to do with politics, and everything to do with the fact that Fairfield County is very close to Manhattan, and all the investment bankers with families want to live in a nearby suburb.

"people in cities knowing that Repub. have no empathy or compassion for the poor. "

LIE! That's a lie! Does you survey count that as a lie?

I look at what is going on in our cities, controlled by liberals for 40 years, and I say they deserve better. Liberals say we need to do more of the same. And I'm the one with no empathy.

And as we have discussed, the one study done on the issue, published by the New York Times, showed that conservatives donate more time and money to charity, than liberals. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good liberal rant.

When you don't have the facts Paul, accuse me of some kind of hate. In this case, because I want to abandon the liberalism that has destroyed the poor black community, that means I lack empathy.

As I said, and as you showed more clearly than I could ever articulate, you cannot be intellectually honest and be liberal. It's not possible. The empirical evidence is there, that liberal economics is bad policy. But liberals cannot admit and process facts that don't support the narrative.

I voted for Bill Clinton, I was a card-carrying Democrat. Until I took the time to look at what liberalism actually does, rather than relying on what liberals claim that liberalism does. The reality is a tad different from the narrative.

How bad do things have to get, before you can admit the obvious?

And I voted for both Bush's until I saw what conservatism really was.

not blind to anything bucko. I do not go along with with everyone says. I form my own opinions and voice them. i'm about as independent as one can be. sheeple my azz. btw - look at the guy in your mirror that's most likely a sheeple looking back at you.

You have no idea what it is. You only know what the New York Times claims it is.

Paul, I live in CT, which is as blue as it gets. It's a wealthy state, and as I said, that's not a function of liberalism, it's a function of proximity to Manhattan. Our state is just about broke, thanks to liberals being in bed with labor unions. To balance the budget, did the liberals in Hartford demand that the unions give back anything? Nope. Those liberals want to stay in power, so they couldn't stand up to the unions. So they made brutal cuts to social services to the most needy people in my state, cuts to mental health, etc. Too bad that mental patients don't represent a powerful voting block. The Republicans tried to stop it, but didn't have the votes.

That's fact.

It's also fact, as I pointed out in the study called "Who Really Cares", that conservatives actually do have plenty of empathy for the poor. The study determines that conservatives actually have more empathy than liberals. But let's suffice to say that liberals don't have a monopoly on caring about the poor, and every time you claim otherwise, I will show you how demonstrably false that is. If you consider the religious practices of conservatives versus liberals, that is very understandable.

Here's what conservatism is - limited federal government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, sanctity and preciousness of all life, charity for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, letting the free market (within limits) do its thing to allow maximum upward economic mobility.

You won't hear Rachael Maddow describe conservatism that way. Because as dumb as she is, she's smart enough to know that she has nothing to gain if we have an honest discussion of what conservatism is.

George W Bush is credited with saving over one million lives in Africa, thanks to his AIDS initiatives that he led. A million lives. Did you even know about that? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama cannot claim anything even close to that. And liberals give him almost no credit, called him racist.

You have no facts, no intellectual honesty on your side, no common sense. Just insults designed to end the debate that you know you are losing.

I heard Hillary plans to appoint Anthony Weiner "Internet and Communications Czar"...he has an "impressive resume' "

Well, he does know how to use a cell phone....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device