Hillary Clinton

• BoatShoes

  jmog;1805825 wrote:I don't disagree that Trump is a liar, but politifact has been proven to be left leaning in their "fact checking" over and over again, so I wouldn't use them as proof of who lies more/less.

  PROVEN I TELL YOU!!! PROVEN!!!!
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1805930 wrote:All politicians pass along false information. Most of them likely doing so with the intent to deceive. But Hillary is a grade above all of them. She lied about being under fire in a combat zone. That's like lying about having cancer. These types of hideous lies for personal gain belittle all those who have suffered through these situations. People caught in these types of lies are normally shamed out of their positions in disgrace.
  
  Yet Hillary is promoted to leader of the State Department where she orders men to a combat zone to set up a diplomatic mission without adequate protection. Two of them are subsequently killed along with two others trying to save their lives. Hillary then lies for political reasons about the motive of the attack which occurred weeks before a presidential election and has the object of her lies locked up in a federal prison.
  
  She lies with such impunity and can shrug them off with simple statements. In the Benghazi situation it was "what difference at this point does it make". In Bosnia where she claimed she was under sniper fire, there was no greeting ceremony and she was told to duck and run to cars to take her to safety with a firm "now that is what happened". In the face of video showing the exact opposite it was dismissed with a couple of coughs and "I was sleep deprived". Now recently we all saw FBI Director Comey directly state Hillary's public statements on her email issue were lies. Chris Wallace replays some of his statements in front of Hillary and she lies again telling all of us we really did not just see Comey call her a liar. Then when asked by the press if she lied once again stated she "may have short-circuited".

  Hillary Rodham Clinton, The First of Her name, Defender of Children, Protector of the Homeland and Mother of Lies uses Machiavellian cunning that would make John Adams proud.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1805898 wrote:They reference the George Mason University study and then give their opinion. The George Mason study was the point of the links.

  George Mason University is a conservative institution and thereby tainted just like political based on your own reasoning. Uh oh Jmog.
  
  Further let us consider Jmog's various standards of proof and evidence and laugh.
  
  1. He believes a throw away line about a behemoth in the book of Job is sufficient evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men.
  
  2. He considers 1 study to be PROOF that politifact is liberal and untrustworthy
  
  3. He rejects the overwhelming evidence for human generated emissions creating a greenhouse effect like that on Venus which leads to anthropogenically driven Climate Change and DEMANDS the most stringent confidence intervals before he would even consider it....(which of course he does not demand when proving dinosaurs lived on humans with an Ark and that politifact is untrustworthy.
  
  
  Basically a perfect example of someone who shifts his standards of proof to confirm his biases and preconceptions. To add sugar on top he is smart and uses his being an engineer....er....scientist....to justify doing so and alleviate that painful cognitive dissonance.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1806043 wrote:Hillary Rodham Clinton, The First of Her name, Defender of Children, Protector of the Homeland and Mother of Lies uses Machiavellian cunning that would make John Adams proud.

  We are in the context of 21st century American politics. Where we have things like recorded video where all can witness lies with their own eyes. But I guess when attempting to defend someone as reprehensible as Hillary is, maligning a man that has been dead for nearly two centuries is what one must resort to.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1806046 wrote:George Mason University is a conservative institution and thereby tainted just like political based on your own reasoning. Uh oh Jmog.
  
  Further let us consider Jmog's various standards of proof and evidence and laugh.
  
  1. He believes a throw away line about a behemoth in the book of Job is sufficient evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men.
  
  2. He considers 1 study to be PROOF that politifact is liberal and untrustworthy
  
  3. He rejects the overwhelming evidence for human generated emissions creating a greenhouse effect like that on Venus which leads to anthropogenically driven Climate Change and DEMANDS the most stringent confidence intervals before he would even consider it....(which of course he does not demand when proving dinosaurs lived on humans with an Ark and that politifact is untrustworthy.
  
  
  Basically a perfect example of someone who shifts his standards of proof to confirm his biases and preconceptions. To add sugar on top he is smart and uses his being an engineer....er....scientist....to justify doing so and alleviate that painful cognitive dissonance.

  You actually got all 3 points wrong but why would I expect any less from BS.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1806046 wrote:George Mason University is a conservative institution and thereby tainted just like political based on your own reasoning. Uh oh Jmog.
  
  Further let us consider Jmog's various standards of proof and evidence and laugh.
  
  1. He believes a throw away line about a behemoth in the book of Job is sufficient evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men.
  
  2. He considers 1 study to be PROOF that politifact is liberal and untrustworthy
  
  3. He rejects the overwhelming evidence for human generated emissions creating a greenhouse effect like that on Venus which leads to anthropogenically driven Climate Change and DEMANDS the most stringent confidence intervals before he would even consider it....(which of course he does not demand when proving dinosaurs lived on humans with an Ark and that politifact is untrustworthy.
  
  
  Basically a perfect example of someone who shifts his standards of proof to confirm his biases and preconceptions. To add sugar on top he is smart and uses his being an engineer....er....scientist....to justify doing so and alleviate that painful cognitive dissonance.

  
  A google search proves that only thinkprogress.org lists GM as progressive. Every other study on Google lists it as middle of the road, slightly liberal, or heavy libertarian (obviously a different spectrum than linear).
  
  Sorry that you are wrong again unless you believe thinkprogress has no agenda or bias?
  
  https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities?name=George%20Mason%20University
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1806058 wrote:We are in the context of 21st century American politics. Where we have things like recorded video where all can witness lies with their own eyes. But I guess when attempting to defend someone as reprehensible as Hillary is, maligning a man that has been dead for nearly two centuries is what one must resort to.

  I am not maligning John Adams. Politics is blood sport. The Mother of Lies lures her opponents into her web of Lies and then crushes them without mercy. Just as they think she is weak enough to lose to Trump she unleashes her media hounds.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1806109 wrote:You actually got all 3 points wrong but why would I expect any less from BS.

  
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1806125 wrote:A google search proves that only thinkprogress.org lists GM as progressive. Every other study on Google lists it as middle of the road, slightly liberal, or heavy libertarian (obviously a different spectrum than linear).
  
  Sorry that you are wrong again unless you believe thinkprogress has no agenda or bias?
  
  https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities?name=George%20Mason%20University

  I was messing with you Jmog because you always complain about ad hominem but attacking the source is ad hominem which you always do and did in this case.
  
  GMU has a strong libertarian tilt in its law and economics faculty and through its Mercatus Center think tank which is funded by the Koch but it's Center for Media and Public Affairs is a good example of a non-partisan think tank.
  
  And did you even read their press release on the Politifact study? It simply pointed out that Politifact rates Republican statements as lies at a much higher rate than Democrat statements and made no claim that this was indicative of a liberal bias!
  
  In fact, the conclusion could just as easily be REPUBLICANS LIE MORE. Which, when you nominate Trump that is going to be easy because he lies twenty times a day before the Mother of Lies wakes up.
  
  IOW you did not even produce a legitimate study indicative of a liberal bias at politifact which you claimed. You read results of a study and affirmed your prior belief that Politifact has a liberal bias and never entertained the other potential conclusion from that perhaps Republicans maybe do lie more.
  
  Thank you for the entertainment.
• QuakerOats

  Just another chapter in her HORRIFIC 'record' book:
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/08/report-clintons-jobs-push-as-senator-fell-flat-helped-donors.html
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1806136 wrote:I was messing with you Jmog because you always complain about ad hominem but attacking the source is ad hominem which you always do and did in this case.
  

  You may want to look up the definition of ad hominem before you say I committed that logical fallacy. It is when one attacks the person not when one discredits a study or a source as biased.
  
  Ad hominem would have been if I attacked Zwick not if I showed a study to show that the website was biased.
  
  Read your first referring to me for a good example of what ad hominem really is.
  
  If you want to say I used a logical fallacy you may want to try False Authority which is the same logical fallacy I was trying to pin on politifact. You would just try it on GM.
  
  Speaking of ad hominem, you may need to retake a statistics course if you believe a sample of say 100 republicans vs 100 democrats would come out with pretty much all of the republicans lying more (which politifact has stated).
• Belly35

  

  Hillary body count continues to grow ... 4 dead American based on a liar about a video and now one dead Iranian from her no top security info was e mail server....... Sorry doesn't matter ... You have dead people to answer for Hillary
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1806256 wrote:You may want to look up the definition of ad hominem before you say I committed that logical fallacy. It is when one attacks the person not when one discredits a study or a source as biased.

  Actually, if you're responding to a claim by attacking the source of a claim (even if it's a site, network, etc.) by simply saying it's a de facto biased source, that still would technically qualify as ad hominem.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1806293 wrote:Actually, if you're responding to a claim by attacking the source of a claim (even if it's a site, network, etc.) by simply saying it's a de facto biased source, that still would technically qualify as ad hominem.

  I would think discrediting an "authority" would possibly be False Authority if the proof given was by another biased authority.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1806294 wrote:I would think discrediting an "authority" would possibly be False Authority if the proof given was by another biased authority.

  This could easily become an epistemic crisis.
  
  If someone says, "X said Y," it would probably be better to ask about the foundation for X to say Y as opposed to issuing a blanket statement that X has no credibility, though.
  
  Broken clocks and all ...
• jmog

  O-Trap;1806298 wrote:This could easily become an epistemic crisis.
  
  If someone says, "X said Y," it would probably be better to ask about the foundation for X to say Y as opposed to issuing a blanket statement that X has no credibility, though.
  
  Broken clocks and all ...

  I always thought epistemic crisis involved world views and looking at the same information and coming up with equally valid conclusions that are vastly different from each other. All due to the difference in world view.
  
  I understand how this could be viewed in a political view as well, but that also lends credibility to my original statement that politifact is left leaning as they nearly to the tee fine democrats "credible" and republicans "lying".
  
  Simple statistics leads this to be a false conclusion but an epistemic crisis could explain it as well.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1806307 wrote:I always thought epistemic crisis involved world views and looking at the same information and coming up with equally valid conclusions that are vastly different from each other. All due to the difference in world view.
  
  I understand how this could be viewed in a political view as well, but that also lends credibility to my original statement that politifact is left leaning as they nearly to the tee fine democrats "credible" and republicans "lying".
  
  Simple statistics leads this to be a false conclusion but an epistemic crisis could explain it as well.

  I meant more that WE, the ones discussing it, would be facing one. Namely an endless regress as strict skeptics.
  
  If you were to cite those statistics, that would certainly grant credibility to your assessment of the source.
  
  However, going back, a rebuttal is still never thorough if only the source is addressed. Again, broken clocks ...
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I personally don't give a rats ass about ad hominems or anything about that topic of discussion. It was just some articles.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  rut roh... Ms. Clinton getting sued!
• QuakerOats

  Parents of 2 Benghazi victims suing Clinton --
  
  The parents of two of the four Americans who died in the Benghazi attack in 2012 file a lawsuit against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, alleging her “extremely careless” handling of classified information contributed to their deaths.
  
  
  Perhaps they can take a chunk of her hundreds of millions in money-laundered funds.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1806375 wrote:Parents of 2 Benghazi victims suing Clinton --
  
  The parents of two of the four Americans who died in the Benghazi attack in 2012 file a lawsuit against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, alleging her “extremely careless” handling of classified information contributed to their deaths.
  
  
  Perhaps they can take a chunk of her hundreds of millions in money-laundered funds.

  This is stupid but kinda cheeky so I like it.
• QuakerOats

  MATEEN FATHER FLASHBACK: GOD WILL PUNISH GAYS...
  SUPPORTED TALIBAN...
  CAMPAIGN NO COMMENT ON ENDORSEMENT...
  HILLARY IGNORES QUESTION...
  
  
  
  Oh boy, will Hillary disavow ..........will she even be asked to LOL
  
  
• QuakerOats

  [h=1]EXCLUSIVE: Child rape victim comes forward for the first time in 40 years to call Hillary Clinton a 'liar' who defended her rapist by smearing her, blocking evidence and callously laughing that she knew he was guilty[/h][h=1][/h]· 'Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,' says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas
  · Clinton was the rapist's defense lawyer, pleading him down to 'unlawful fondling of a minor'
  · The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison
  · The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime
  · Shelton says she's furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail
  · Clinton accused Shelton of 'seeking out older men' in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination
  · The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s
  
  
  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html#ixzz4GwBz39WW
  
  
  
  Disgusting
• QuakerOats

  EXCLUSIVE: Child rape victim comes forward for the first time in 40 years to call Hillary Clinton a 'liar' who defended her rapist by smearing her, blocking evidence and callously laughing that she knew he was guilty
  
  · 'Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,' says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas
  · Clinton was the rapist's defense lawyer, pleading him down to 'unlawful fondling of a minor'
  · The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison
  · The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime
  · Shelton says she's furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail
  · Clinton accused Shelton of 'seeking out older men' in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination
  · The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s
  
  
  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html#ixzz4GwBz39WW
  
  
  
  Disgusting
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  read more: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/