Stable Genius Elon?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Since most of the media ignores anything wrong done by democrats, how are we to know what voters are actually aware of?

Big article in the NY Times today about politicians lying. Both D and R mentioned.

I bet you will continue to repeat that same line hundreds of times though.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so “a few lies”, at least when told by democrats, is acceptable.

What’s the maximum number of lies that are allowed, before we should start caring? do democrats get a larger number?

Show me a D how "gets a larger number?"

Keep trying to comparing hundreds/thousands of lies with 1 or an embellishment and that is why we (I) can't take you seriously.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Show me a D how "gets a larger number?"

Keep trying to comparing hundreds/thousands of lies with 1 or an embellishment and that is why we (I) can't take you seriously.

Biden.

Santos has told hundreds or thousands of lies? how many fin hem are crimes, as blumenthals lie is?

[Jim in CT]

paul this is just like the kids in cages at the border. it was totally ok when obama did it, but a crime against humanity when trump did the same exact thing, because according to you guys, trump did it more often. i asked 50 times how many times it’s ok to lock kids in cages before it’s evil, none of you even tried to answer.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden.

Santos has told hundreds or thousands of lies? how many fin hem are crimes, as blumenthals lie is?

And here it is again Jim’s logic

if they are not crimes what’s the problem

Jim give up . You defend this clown right off the bat. But know since you committed yourself to his cause

You decide to do what you always do try to make some false equivalences. And in double down because you can’t win the argument.

And the only argument I made was if his lies were proven truth would Republicans make him resign?

And it’s looking like they won’t hopefully they’ll come to their senses
But now they are proving that they are not the party of integrity, honesty, truthfulness they’re only interested in keeping his seat at any cost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And here it is again Jim’s logic

if they are not crimes what’s the problem

Jim give up . You defend this clown right off the bat. But know since you committed yourself to his cause

You decide to do what you always do try to make some false equivalences. And in double down because you can’t win the argument.

And the only argument I made was if his lies were proven truth would Republicans make him resign?

And it’s looking like they won’t hopefully they’ll come to their senses
But now they are proving that they are not the party of integrity, honesty, truthfulness they’re only interested in keeping his seat at any cost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

defend him? i said to kick him out.

you really, really are stupid.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden.

Santos has told hundreds or thousands of lies? how many fin hem are crimes, as blumenthals lie is?

Santos has told dozens (on the way to hundreds) of lies. Trump thousands.

The D lies or embellishments you post are not crimes and that is why both Santos and Trump are being investigated by federal and local authorities.

Blumenthal was a reservist and said he served in vietnam - which he didn't. How is Blumenthal's a crime?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And here it is again Jim’s logic

if they are not crimes what’s the problem

Jim give up . You defend this clown right off the bat. But know since you committed yourself to his cause

You decide to do what you always do try to make some false equivalences. And in double down because you can’t win the argument.

And the only argument I made was if his lies were proven truth would Republicans make him resign?

And it’s looking like they won’t hopefully they’ll come to their senses
But now they are proving that they are not the party of integrity, honesty, truthfulness they’re only interested in keeping his seat at any cost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is Blumenthal's lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is Blumenthal's lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

So I'll ask again, what did Blumenthal do that is a crime? I'll wait.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I'll ask again, what did Blumenthal do that is a crime? I'll wait.

If you do something before the law is passed to make it a crime you didn’t commit a crime.
The law in this country is not retroactive.
Jim’s thinking of his dream, a totalitarian country run by an authoritarian who will make everyone he doesn’t like behave correctly and control the branches of government to make it happen.
Like his hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I'll ask again, what did Blumenthal do that is a crime? I'll wait.

stolen valor is a crime. he lied for years about serving in vietnam.

i’m still waiting. paul, how many pies is ok? and how many is too many?

I’m still waiting. I answered your question.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

stolen valor is a crime. he lied for years about serving in vietnam.

i’m still waiting. paul, how many pies is ok? and how many is too many?

I’m still waiting. I answered your question.

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying. Blumenthal said he served in vietnam in 2003 and there was no law against saying that. He said he misspoke and other times said he did not serve. The law says he has to receive a benefit and he did not.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying. Blumenthal said he served in vietnam in 2003 and there was no law against saying that. He said he misspoke and other times said he did not serve.

sorry, i assumed you could read, my bad. I said here in this thread, , that “today”, his lie is a crime. It wasn’t then, but is is today. true or false?

any special reason why you’re too cowardly to defend your statement that it’s about the number of lies? what’s the magic number paul? how many lies are ok?

the answer is, “how ever many the democrat tells, that number is ok. however many the republican tells. is too many”.

Right?

biden was caught plagiarizing and had told plenty of whoppers to puff himself up. And I don’t really care as many of them do it. but all of a sudden you guys are saying that lying disqualifies yiu from federal government. at least when republicans do it, that is.

Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying. and he’s an enormously popular hero to the left.

Must be convenient to cloak yourself in such hypocrisy.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is Blumenthal's lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden.

Santos has told hundreds or thousands of lies? how many fin hem are crimes, as blumenthals lie is?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

stolen valor is a crime. he lied for years about serving in vietnam.

i’m still waiting. paul, how many pies is ok? and how many is too many?

I’m still waiting. I answered your question.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sorry, i assumed you could read, my bad. I said here in this thread, , that “today”, his lie is a crime. It wasn’t then, but is is today. true or false?If it wasn't a crime then why are you still accusing Blumenthal of committing a crime? It is bc you are a scummy person who lies all the time. You lied here even though you admit he did not commit a crime you say he committed a crime but clearly know it is not a crime. How scummy is that? You keep saying he committed a crime which is a lie. He wasn't a crime when he said it and he received no benefit from it which is a part of the law and yet you intentionally lie about it. He didn't "lie for years". He said it and then admitted it was wrong and other times he clearly said he was not in Vietnam. Isn't that what you just did? You said something and then later said something else. So who is the liar here?

any special reason why you’re too cowardly to defend your statement that it’s about the number of lies? what’s the magic number paul? how many lies are ok?

the answer is, “how ever many the democrat tells, that number is ok. however many the republican tells. is too many”.

Right?

biden was caught plagiarizing and had told plenty of whoppers to puff himself up. And I don’t really care as many of them do it. but all of a sudden you guys are saying that lying disqualifies yiu from federal government. at least when republicans do it, that is.

Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying. and he’s an enormously popular hero to the left.

Must be convenient to cloak yourself in such hypocrisy.

So you just got caught lying again! It seems to be a common theme with you. I'll bump up that other thread to show what a scummy liar you are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So you just got caught lying again! It seems to be a common theme with you. I'll bump up that other thread to show what a scummy liar you are.

what lie didn’t tell paul? i said that what blumenthal did then, is a crime today.

you said it’s about the number of lies, but you flatly refuse to go into any detail about how that makes any sense at all.

i’m answering your questions, you’re dodging mine, because even you know you can’t respond without looking foolish.

go ahead an insult me again instead of answering.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what lie didn’t tell paul? i said that what blumenthal did then, is a crime today.If it wasn't a crime then why are you still accusing Blumenthal of committing a crime? It is bc you are a scummy person who lies all the time. You lied here even though you admit he did not commit a crime you say he committed a crime but clearly know it is not a crime. How scummy is that? You keep saying he committed a crime which is a lie. He wasn't a crime when he said it and he received no benefit from it which is a part of the law and yet you intentionally lie about it. He didn't "lie for years". He said it and then admitted it was wrong and other times he clearly said he was not in Vietnam. Isn't that what you just did? You said something and then later said something else. So who is the liar here?


you said it’s about the number of lies, but you flatly refuse to go into any detail about how that makes any sense at all.

i’m answering your questions, you’re dodging mine, because even you know you can’t respond without looking foolish.

go ahead an insult me again instead of answering.Funny how you constantly insult people then complain when they insult you back.

I did answer earlier. I assumed you could read, my bad.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I did answer earlier. I assumed you could read, my bad.

YOU guys said the severity of the lies matter. Therefore it’s worth pointing out that blumenthals lie is so bad, it’s now a crime. i asked you guys many times, on what basis you’d conclude santos lies are worse?

so how many lies are allowed?

[Jim in CT]

paul, i never claimed to be smart. so please point me to your post where you specified how many lies are allowed, and how you arrived at that number.

still waiting.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, i never claimed to be smartBut you CONSTANTLY insult people's intelligence by calling them stupid and saying their posts are gibberish. So what does this say about you?. so please point me to your post where you specified how many lies are allowed, and how you arrived at that number.

still waiting.

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

YOU guys said the severity of the lies matter. Therefore it’s worth pointing out that blumenthals lie is so bad, it’s now a crime. i asked you guys many times, on what basis you’d conclude santos lies are worse?

so how many lies are allowed?

How did he benefit since that is an important part of the law? What money or tangible benefit did he receive?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How did he benefit since that is an important part of the law?

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

how can you say Santos benefitted?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

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. “

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

seriously? he was praised for it, and won elections after telling the liesThat is another lie. He was not praised for it. and received no monetery benefit - which is what the law really was written for.

how can you say Santos benefitted?

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

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…

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it must be. in post #60, i asked you how many lies are allowed? nowhere after that,,don’t see that you answered.

So either my reading comprehension is very poor, or you’re the liar.

“everything is ok when democrats do it. “

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul why do YOU think blumenthal told the lie?

I’ll
wait. again. coward. You are a scummy liar

He said he mispoke.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

saying “the republican told too many, the democrat told less than the alliedIs that the gibberish you rudely accuse others of or is that just a typo? amount” is t explaining anything paul.
it’s an empty, self serving answer.

you never responded. but claimed you didYou just said it was an empty self serving answer and then in the very next sentence said the exact opposite - that I never responded. This is like arguing with a child.. are you a scummy liar? or are you still below the allowable number?

this is fun.

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!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, now you claim to know that Santos benefitted from his lies,Are the Rs that shallow that they would elect someone with the lack of credentials of Santos? and you also know that Blumenthal l didnt. He already had an impressive resume, unlike Santos Impressive mind reading there.

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

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.