seriously? he was praised for it, and won elections after telling the lies

how can you say Santos benefitted?

it must be. in post #60, i asked you how many lies are allowed? nowhere after that,,do I see that you answered. You asked questions which i answered, and you lobbed some insults. But i can’t see where you specified how many lies are allowed and how many is too many, and how you arrived at that threshold.

So either my reading comprehension is very poor, or you’re the liar. if you answered i apologize but i don’t see it. i’m squinting at my phone while watching my oldest play hoops so maybe i messed it and maybe you chose to dodge.

“everything is ok when democrats do it. “

He got elected bc it looks like he LIED about almost everything. Great college education, successful businessman, generous, founded charities, had ees killed, etc, etc. all lies. The truth is pretty much the exact opposite.

paul why do YOU think blumenthal told the lie?

I’ll
wait. again. coward.

Paul, now you claim to know that Santos benefitted from his lies, and you also know that Blumenthal didnt. Impressive mind reading there.

Halftime is over, in my sons game, this is a waste as usual. dodge, insult, dodge, insult, repeat…

there are a few posts where I explained to you. So it looks like your reading comprehension is very poor or you are intentionally lying.

saying “the republican told too many, the democrat told less than the allied amount” is t explaining anything paul.
it’s an empty, self serving answer.

you never responded. but claimed you did. are you a scummy liar? or are you still below the allowable number?

this is fun.

He said he mispoke.

It is,, I point out where you know he didn't commit a crime yet say that anyways. Shows what a scummy person you are. Then I bump up another thread where you lied about what I said and that shows what a scummy person you are. Do you see a pattern here?

This is fun!

I answered your questions and also pointed out how you are a scummy person who lies and accuses someone of committing a crime when they know there was no law against it at the time.

Where did you tell me how many lies are acceptable, and how many are too many?

my first mention of the law and Blumenthal's crime...

What law would that be can’t wait because you have no idea what you’re talking about

But Let me guess stolen valor act ?

You can’t even read the law correctly

federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that he or she received the award.

a Congressional Medal of Honor,
a distinguished-service cross,
a Navy cross,
an Air Force cross,
a silver star,
a Purple Heart,
a Combat Infantryman's Badge,
a Combat Action Badge,
a Combat Medical Badge,
a Combat Action Ribbon,
a Combat Action Medal, or
any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law

I have 2 on the list .

Blumenthal Never claimed he was awarded any of those awards.

But he did say this

Blumenthal responded to a question about Iran by saying, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action, and no one wants it to be the first resort




yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never.

I have . you still can’t accept the difference . between a white lie
Or admit Santos behavior isn’t just a lie it’s totally fraudulent made up to misrepresent himself to voters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And then you repeatedly say it was a crime when you specifically know it was not a crime because there was no law at the time. And part of the law is that he has to benefit monetarily which he did not do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said it "is" a crime. Today, it's a crime.

The proof is there in my first post on the topic, Paul, if that wasn't clear enough for you, then you need this stuff expressed in pop-up books.

I can argue Blumenthal did benefit from it. If you can assume Santos' lies helped his election, why can't I assume the same exact thing about Blumenthal? Just because Blumenthal is a democrat?

Let's be very clear...you're telling us, that Blumenthal never claimed he served in the Vietnam War? IS that what you're saying?

FFS, it was a huge story at the time. He said repeatedly that he served "in Vietnam", and made references to when we all came back from Vietnam.

If, in fact, he has to claim he won medals to break that law, then you are 100% correct he didn't break that law, and I'm 100% wrong. But you are 100% wrong if you say he never claimed to have served in that war. He absolutely made that claim. Many times.

This is from the New York Times...

quotes from Blumenthal, as reported by the New York Times...

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam"

In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,”

Asked about the Bridgeport rally, when he told the crowd, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said he did not recall the event.

But all you can do, is post a quote where he said he didn't serve...even Paul S knows what I'm referring to.

And this guy will keep getting re-elected in CT until he chooses not to run again. He can never be defeated, because the CT voters don't care about his lie.

But you have zero complaint when democrat voters ignore lies told by democrat politicians.

Wayne, I'd love for you to explain why you posted the Blumenthal quote which you chose to post (also in the NYT story I posted), yet you ignored the other quotes which prove he explicitly lied. What was yoru motive, if not just to serve your narrative as always?

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/n...lumenthal.html

Wayne, I'd love for you to explain why you posted the Blumenthal quote which you chose to post

Very simple Jim he is admitting he was never in Vietnam regardless of previous comments aka setting the record straight . not doubling down

And seem he was almost as bad as a draft dodger as Trump was (almost)

So there is no law. I figured as much
Who’s lying now. Or perhaps you miss spoke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so, if he admits he was never in vietnam, only after getting caught about lying that he was in vietnam…then to you, he never lied in the first place?

that’s some serious logic there wayne.

and then you pivot to trump in order to change the subject…

liz warren lied about native american heritage on a job application to harvard, after that lie she was rewarded with a job paying, i believe, $400k a year. that’s not fraud?

and we all know you continue to vote for her.

Now it’s back to hit # 27 on Jimmy’s playlist, Senator Warren

He does this even though he believes that character doesn’t matter, apparently he only finds fault with people he calls demeaning names, much like his hero.

A classic example of a false equivalence has been described by author Isaac Asimov:

“…when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device