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

Temper, Temper.

I grew up between New Haven and Bridgeport, CT. Two cities that have been blue as can be, for 40 years. When I was a kid, my Mom (who was a stay at home mom) used to take us to those cities all the time for a day trip, they were nice places to visit. Now, they are uninhabitable sh*tholes. Paul, if that's your idea of "prosperity", if that's your idea of empathy or compassion for the poor, then you have issues somewhere.

Liberalism is swell for people who are already wealthy. Especially for those who are wealthy, and aren't all that excited about seeing blacks prosper, perhaps (?) because they don't want to ride next to blacks on the ferry to Marthas Vineyard. Whatever the reason, if you can point to large-scale examples of liberalism leading to prosperity for large numbers of poor people (especially blacks), I would just love to see the examples you cite. Hartford? Jersey City? Baltimore? Chicago? Detroit?

Why are those cities poor? Because the prosperous people fled.

What made the prosperous people want to flee? Liberalism. These big cities have become places that are welcoming for those who don't want to work, and places that are impossible for people who do want to work. That's what liberalism does. It turns out, that philosophy is short-sighted and stupid.

and a famous weiner too

time to see what the Puffington Post has to say.........:smokin:

Well, he was acquitted from the impeachment charge and he wasn't disbarred.

Click here...

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/0...y-gallup-poll/

Then click here...

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...massachusetts/

Oh and then click here...

http://www.politifact.com/global-new...illion-lower-/

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...vable/?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10904831/n.../#.V8caJk3lvWM

I didn't say he was removed from office. I said he was impeached.

Here's one for you, Spence...when Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski under oath, was he lying? You may commence your twisting and spinning...

I applaud them, I sincerely do. I didn't see in that article however, a study which estimates how many lives were saved. Nonetheless, it's a world-class gesture.

Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation was also used to give money (via salary) and luxury to people that the Clintons saw fit to reward. I'm not sure Bush used his AIDS initiative to enrich his cronies.

Oh, I did. Massachusetts is quite blue. And you posted a study saying it has a swell economy. I guess I am completely wrong.

Hold on...what variables did your study look at, in ranking the health of the state economy? Income, OK...GDP, makes sense...unemployment, sounds fair. Hold on? No mention of debt! None at all?

Spence, do you know what a "balance sheet" is? When one looks at the health of an organization, do you think it's a good idea to only look at the left side (assets) of a balance sheet, and ignore the right side (liabilities)?

Using that approach, there was a time when this study would have concluded that Allen Iverson's economic health was far superior to mine. After all, he had more assets. Who cares about liabilities?

Here's another study, that looks at state debt per capita...Massachusetts is 3rd highest, with state+local debt per citizen, of $13,000, one spot ahead of CT. So when that debt comes due, which it will soon (it's all tied to when enough Bbay Boomers are retired and looking for fat pension checks), how healthy will that state economy be?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...nding_2016dH0C

You work in some kind of a business capacity, right? That's terrifying.

Yes sir, according to you, assets = economic health. If you have a lot of assets, that's all you need to know!

What is it with liberals, anyway? How is it, that you can convince yourself that future debt, isn't something that needs to be taken into account?