- Thread starter
- #1,821
8 years of hillary.
US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low
- Thread starter sealybobo
- Start date
She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy! Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about? Using political power to enrich themselves.
Rshermr
VIP Member
Poor Oldstyle. The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose. But each time, he was crushed. Poor sad little mind.
Rshermr
VIP Member
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.
Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.
If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.
Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.
Markle
Diamond Member
I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.
Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?
And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.
So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:
So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]
CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]
Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]
So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?
Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..
Right.
Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.
Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.
Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,551
- 3,635
You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.
- Thread starter
- #1,827
Let's get rid of those regulations! One at a time.I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.
Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?
And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.
So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:
So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]
CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]
Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]
So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?
Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..
Right.
Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.
Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.
Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.
But no, trump didn't win the GOP nomination because of regulations because Republicans are all against regulations.
And trumps not doing well.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,551
- 3,635
You do know Trump is running on the platform of adding more tariiffs, right?I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.
Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?
And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.
So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:
So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]
CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]
Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]
So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?
Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..
Right.
Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.
Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.
Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.
[/QUOTE]
If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.
Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.[/QUOTE]
Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy!
If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.
Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.[/QUOTE]
Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy!
Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose! I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School! After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation. Barack Obama's "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies...ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!
- Thread starter
- #1,831
If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.
Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.[/QUOTE]
Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.
Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?
Hillary Clinton is not a liar.
You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.
But she may very well be a panderer.
Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.
More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”
As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:
There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.
You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.
Wage growth has been essentially flat for twenty years, Faun. What's amusing is that you refer to this as Bush's recession when he's been back in Crawford, Texas cutting brush for the past eight years while Barack Obama sat in the Oval Office. It's only become a "Great Recession" because Obama hasn't had a clue how to deal with the economy.
- Thread starter
- #1,833
And all these assholes calling Hillary a liar. Ask Kasich Cruz or Rubio if they want to do away with Social Security. What will they say, the truth? **** no! But we all know they do want to do away with it. So why don't they just be honest about it?You do know Trump is running on the platform of adding more tariiffs, right?I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?
And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.
So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:
So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]
CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]
Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]
So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?
Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..
Right.
Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.
Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.
Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations. Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.
The report found that Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security and are willing to pay more to preserve and even improve benefits.
With more than 59 million people receiving Social Security benefits, Americans recognize that Social Security is a critical program. Large majorities of Americans say they don’t mind paying Social Security taxes because of the security and stability the benefits provide to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers. These findings hold true across party lines (those agreeing include 87% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans). Americans are also willing to pay for Social Security because they value it for themselves (73%) and their families (73%).
That's why Republicans have to lie because their ideas are very unpopular.
Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.
Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?
Hillary Clinton is not a liar.
You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.
But she may very well be a panderer.
Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.
More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”
As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:
There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.[/QUOTE]
What lies? Seriously, Sealy? I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at! They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar!
- Thread starter
- #1,835
Who knows what you were saying because your history here only goes back to 2012 when you were bitching about Benghazi and immigrants coming into the country.
There is no way to expect a fair and balanced opinion from you. You're clearly brainwashed and set in your ways. But that's cool. We don't need you to get Hillary elected.
- Thread starter
- #1,836
What lies? About being under sniper fire? That was weird but she said she made a mistake. Move on.
Now what other lies? And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. What has she got caught lying about?
Hillary Clinton is not a liar.
You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump? How convenient.
But she may very well be a panderer.
Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.
More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”
As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:
There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.[/QUOTE]
What lies? Seriously, Sealy? I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at! They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar![/QUOTE]
Such as?
- Thread starter
- #1,837
What lies? Seriously, Sealy? I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at! They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar![/QUOTE]
Such as?[/QUOTE]
Lets compare lying Don to Truthful Hillary
Clinton's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Clinton's statements for that ruling.
- True50 (23%)(50)
- Mostly True61 (28%)(61)
- Half True46 (21%)(46)
- Mostly False32 (15%)(32)
- False24 (11%)(24)
- Pants on Fire3 (1%)(3)
Click on the ruling to see all of Trump's statements for that ruling.
- True4 (2%)(4)
- Mostly True12 (7%)(12)
- Half True24 (14%)(24)
- Mostly False27 (16%)(27)
- False69 (41%)(69)
- Pants on Fire34 (20%)(34)
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,551
- 3,635
Real data typically remains relatively flat. That's what happens when you factor in inflation. While there are some nominal hills/valleys during strong/weak economies, real data doesn't move much.You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.
Wage growth has been essentially flat for twenty years, Faun. What's amusing is that you refer to this as Bush's recession when he's been back in Crawford, Texas cutting brush for the past eight years while Barack Obama sat in the Oval Office. It's only become a "Great Recession" because Obama hasn't had a clue how to deal with the economy.
And it's been Bush's Great Recession since it started in 2007.
Rshermr
VIP Member
How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?
Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?[/QUOTE]
Actually, as I am sure you read, it states clearly that sh had little to nothing to do with the start. Of the Great Republican DePression. That was the question. The question was not whether
Pression
Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose! you lie again, because you said he would loose, time after time.I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School! After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation. Barack Obama's Right, dipshit. You attacked the sitting president in every possible way 24/7/365 with empty accusations and lies. Because you are a conservative troll, with no ability to discuss things using logic. "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies..Again, lying using standard con talking points. You do not admit that republicans mad many, many changes to the bill, than all voted against it. It must be cool to be able to believe what you want to believe, without any rational thought. For most it would be hell, for you it is heaven..ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!
So, how many posts is this now that have NO economic argument. Just dogma, and lies. There were many democratic bills brought to congress to address the lingering unemployment. All by Democrats. And all were voted down by Republicans. Every single one. Then, as a con troll, you blame the President for the length of the recession. But you know, and I know, that the ongoing recession was exactly what you and what the Republican congress wanted. And you, as I, know that with Republicans doing nothing except voting down bills, there was NO chance any president, even if he was the second coming of Christ, could do about the effects of the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Because congress controlled the process, completely. And because congress wanted the recession to continue for as long as possible. AS DID YOU. Because, you see, you do not care about the middle class, at all. BECAUSE YOU ARE A CON TROLL, AND LIKE ALL CON TROLLS, YOU CARE NOT AT ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS. BECAUSE YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN. ANDA COMPLETE JOKE.
What is really, really funny is that a person who can not discuss economic theory accuses others of not understanding economic theory. All you ever, ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points. And make personal attacks.
For instance, you have no theory of what needs to be done about the recession aftermath, or what should have been done at the time of the worst of the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Nothing. Just Conservative Nut Case Talking Points. Which makes you irrelivent.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Michigan Republicans Attempt to Reduce Property Tax Spikes- Started by Carl in Michigan
- Replies: 0
-
