Hillary Clinton wins Worst Ethics Violator of 2015. Allan Grayson 2nd

[sealybobo]

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-named-worst-ethics-violator-2015/

Anyone not surprised? Democrats win the top two spots followed up by Republican Marc Meadows

Donald Trump wins PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year,’ doesn’t take it lying down

Trump lies all the time and his popularity keeps going up and up and up.

That would be a neat trick for Hillary, but she just keeps going down and down.

She will beat any Republican head to head. All you have to do is pick one.

 

[Conservative65]

lol. so why can't you tell me who won in 2014?

2 reasons

I don't know & nor do I care

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

Wonder if he thinks any first time award is invalid because no one received it the year before? That's the premise of his argument.

you are purposefully misunderstanding my point.

Your argument is that it's invalid because there was no 2014 winner and because you say it's so. That means any first time winner of any award is invalid based on your focus and you have no proof of your claim.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-named-worst-ethics-violator-2015/

Anyone not surprised? Democrats win the top two spots followed up by Republican Marc Meadows

Donald Trump wins PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year,’ doesn’t take it lying down

Trump lies all the time and his popularity keeps going up and up and up.

True and I've done my part to call him out for those lies. But what does that have to do with this?

 

[ogibillm]

For some reason he thinks 2014 is relevant to the winner of a 2015 contest.
Some serious deflection going on

That's because he doesn't agree with the choice for the 2015 winner.

it's because there is no 2014 list. the whole thing is just a way to attack hillary

Are you claiming that any list that exists for the first time is invalid because there wasn't a previous list? You claim it's wrong not based on anything but it's the first time the list was put out.

The Heisman trophy, although known as the Downtown Athletic Club Trophy the first year it was given, started in 1935. Does that mean the first winner, Jay Berwanger, wasn't legitimate because it was the first year it was given? That's the premise of your argument.

no, my premise is that a list put out by a conservative group for the first time in the runup to an election exists solely to push a narrative.

Then surely you have proof of your claim and proof isn't "because I said so".

no proof. but a partisan group putting out a list for the first time in the run-up to an election that just happens to have the front-runner for the opposition at the top of the list? tell me you aren't so easily manipulated.

 

[Conservative65]

That's because he doesn't agree with the choice for the 2015 winner.

it's because there is no 2014 list. the whole thing is just a way to attack hillary

Are you claiming that any list that exists for the first time is invalid because there wasn't a previous list? You claim it's wrong not based on anything but it's the first time the list was put out.

The Heisman trophy, although known as the Downtown Athletic Club Trophy the first year it was given, started in 1935. Does that mean the first winner, Jay Berwanger, wasn't legitimate because it was the first year it was given? That's the premise of your argument.

no, my premise is that a list put out by a conservative group for the first time in the runup to an election exists solely to push a narrative.

Then surely you have proof of your claim and proof isn't "because I said so".

no proof. but a partisan group putting out a list for the first time in the run-up to an election that just happens to have the front-runner for the opposition at the top of the list? tell me you aren't so easily manipulated.

Then you have nothing but "I said so". Please tell me you have more than conjecture.

That so called partisan group has a Republican on the list.

 

[ogibillm]

2 reasons

I don't know & nor do I care

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

Wonder if he thinks any first time award is invalid because no one received it the year before? That's the premise of his argument.

you are purposefully misunderstanding my point.

Your argument is that it's invalid because there was no 2014 winner and because you say it's so. That means any first time winner of any award is invalid based on your focus and you have no proof of your claim.

my argument is that given the source and the lack of a track record it's prudent to take the list as the probable political stunt that i believe it is.

maybe they'll keep putting out their list (i doubt it) and i'll be wrong. we'll see.

 

[rightwinger]

So Conservative lapdog Breitbart quotes Conservative watch groupThe Foundation for Accountability and Government Trust in naming a liberal as their worst ethics violator

I am shocked...absolutely shocked I say!

Who did they name last year? Let me guess........Obama!

 

[Conservative65]

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

Wonder if he thinks any first time award is invalid because no one received it the year before? That's the premise of his argument.

you are purposefully misunderstanding my point.

Your argument is that it's invalid because there was no 2014 winner and because you say it's so. That means any first time winner of any award is invalid based on your focus and you have no proof of your claim.

my argument is that given the source and the lack of a track record it's prudent to take the list as the probable political stunt that i believe it is.

maybe they'll keep putting out their list (i doubt it) and i'll be wrong. we'll see.

In other words, because you said so with a claim of no proof. You view it that way for one and only one reason. You disagree with the choice of the winner. Hardly prudent but damn sure ideologically motivated on your part.

 

[sealybobo]

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-named-worst-ethics-violator-2015/

Anyone not surprised? Democrats win the top two spots followed up by Republican Marc Meadows

Donald Trump wins PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year,’ doesn’t take it lying down

Trump lies all the time and his popularity keeps going up and up and up.

True and I've done my part to call him out for those lies. But what does that have to do with this?

I find Cruz, Carson, Jeb, Christie & Fiorino, Kasich, Rubio etc to be more intellectually dishonest than Hillary.

Either that or I just don't like their economic and political policies. Is Hillary a typical politician? Sure. But who running for the GOP nomination do you trust and love? Tell me!

 

[ogibillm]

lol. so why can't you tell me who won in 2014?

2 reasons

I don't know & nor do I care

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

it's a list. if you want to talk about the accusations, make a thread about the accusations.
this thread was made about a list calling clinton the most unethical.a list i believe exists solely so that clinton can take the top spo

Deflect deflect deflect

We're done here. It's clear you can't be honest

it's clear you don't want to think.

 

[rightwinger]

So......How is Hillary Clinton the most corrupt politician of 2015 when she hasn't held office since 2012?

I detect a fix is in

 

[ogibillm]

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

Wonder if he thinks any first time award is invalid because no one received it the year before? That's the premise of his argument.

you are purposefully misunderstanding my point.

Your argument is that it's invalid because there was no 2014 winner and because you say it's so. That means any first time winner of any award is invalid based on your focus and you have no proof of your claim.

my argument is that given the source and the lack of a track record it's prudent to take the list as the probable political stunt that i believe it is.

maybe they'll keep putting out their list (i doubt it) and i'll be wrong. we'll see.

In other words, because you said so with a claim of no proof. You view it that way for one and only one reason. You disagree with the choice of the winner. Hardly prudent but damn sure ideologically motivated on your part.

again, it's a conservative group putting out the list for the first time before an election. that doesn't smell a little funny to you? that doesn't seem tailor made to make headlines like "Hillary Named Most Unethical of 2015"?

 

[sealybobo]

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-named-worst-ethics-violator-2015/

Anyone not surprised? Democrats win the top two spots followed up by Republican Marc Meadows

I'm surprised I can't find out who's behind The Foundation for Accountability and Government Trust.

I see it is a a Washington-based think tank but is it a conservative a Washington-based think tank? If it is it can fuck off.

It doesn't even have a wiki page yet like American Legislative Exchange Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TooTall]

2 reasons

I don't know & nor do I care

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

it's a list. if you want to talk about the accusations, make a thread about the accusations.
this thread was made about a list calling clinton the most unethical.a list i believe exists solely so that clinton can take the top spo

Deflect deflect deflect

We're done here. It's clear you can't be honest

it's clear you don't want to think.

I thought about it and noticed this group you called partisan had a Republican in third place. That looks non-partisan to me.

 

[Conservative65]

Wonder if he thinks any first time award is invalid because no one received it the year before? That's the premise of his argument.

you are purposefully misunderstanding my point.

Your argument is that it's invalid because there was no 2014 winner and because you say it's so. That means any first time winner of any award is invalid based on your focus and you have no proof of your claim.

my argument is that given the source and the lack of a track record it's prudent to take the list as the probable political stunt that i believe it is.

maybe they'll keep putting out their list (i doubt it) and i'll be wrong. we'll see.

In other words, because you said so with a claim of no proof. You view it that way for one and only one reason. You disagree with the choice of the winner. Hardly prudent but damn sure ideologically motivated on your part.

again, it's a conservative group putting out the list for the first time before an election. that doesn't smell a little funny to you? that doesn't seem tailor made to make headlines like "Hillary Named Most Unethical of 2015"?

Again, prove it. You've already said you can't so anything you claim is pure speculation.

 

[sealybobo]

So The Foundation for Accountability and Government Trust will sacrifice a pawn who I've never even heard of (Mark Meadows) to take out our Queen Hillary? You guys must suck at Chess.

 

[Conservative65]

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

it's a list. if you want to talk about the accusations, make a thread about the accusations.
this thread was made about a list calling clinton the most unethical.a list i believe exists solely so that clinton can take the top spo

Deflect deflect deflect

We're done here. It's clear you can't be honest

it's clear you don't want to think.

I thought about it and noticed this group you called partisan had a Republican in third place. That looks non-partisan to me.

He's mad because he disagrees with the choice of winner.

 

[Dot Com]

This isn't the only thread on this.

The Breitbart pissdrinkers certainly are reliable parrots.

^ that

Its tantamount to me starting a thread using DemocraticUnderground as a source.

Rubber Room

 

[ogibillm]

so for you the list has done it's job. you don't really care if it's accurate or if the people are fair, all you care about is hillary being at the top

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

it's a list. if you want to talk about the accusations, make a thread about the accusations.
this thread was made about a list calling clinton the most unethical.a list i believe exists solely so that clinton can take the top spo

Deflect deflect deflect

We're done here. It's clear you can't be honest

it's clear you don't want to think.

I thought about it and noticed this group you called partisan had a Republican in third place. That looks non-partisan to me.

looks can be deceiving. they are a conservative group.

 

[ogibillm]

you are purposefully misunderstanding my point.

Your argument is that it's invalid because there was no 2014 winner and because you say it's so. That means any first time winner of any award is invalid based on your focus and you have no proof of your claim.

my argument is that given the source and the lack of a track record it's prudent to take the list as the probable political stunt that i believe it is.

maybe they'll keep putting out their list (i doubt it) and i'll be wrong. we'll see.

In other words, because you said so with a claim of no proof. You view it that way for one and only one reason. You disagree with the choice of the winner. Hardly prudent but damn sure ideologically motivated on your part.

again, it's a conservative group putting out the list for the first time before an election. that doesn't smell a little funny to you? that doesn't seem tailor made to make headlines like "Hillary Named Most Unethical of 2015"?

Again, prove it. You've already said you can't so anything you claim is pure speculation.

well, it seems to be doing exactly what i said -breitbart and fox are running with it

 

[TooTall]

Accuracy is based on the allegations not the accuser. 2014 has NOTHING to do with Clinton's ethical problems.
You have spent an ENTIRE hour talking about everything but the ethics violations.

Deflect much

it's a list. if you want to talk about the accusations, make a thread about the accusations.
this thread was made about a list calling clinton the most unethical.a list i believe exists solely so that clinton can take the top spo

Deflect deflect deflect

We're done here. It's clear you can't be honest

it's clear you don't want to think.

I thought about it and noticed this group you called partisan had a Republican in third place. That looks non-partisan to me.

looks can be deceiving. they are a conservative group.

What do you call non-partisan?