Donald Trump for our next President.

Ace_on_the_Turn said:

Let's get the facts straight. You replied to my post, that's what started this discussion thread. You said, "In terms of lying, I'm sorry.... the Clintons have the most impressive body of work." You did not offer any examples, just a generalization. I asked for an example. Now, it's I'm "not really interested in information or intelligent discussion." Now, which is more likely, you don't want to "spoon feed me information" or you simple don't have anything to back up your contention?

Click to expand...

Given that the angelic history of the Clintons is pretty easy to find, I'd say it SHOULD be obvious that I just realize it's moot. It's not like what I'm saying is a secret or difficult to find. You can start with the Mrs, you can start back when she was involved in the Watergate scandal since you like that subject and all continue on a range of subjects, all the way to current events.

GMThunder said:

Given that the angelic history of the Clintons is pretty easy to find, I'd say it SHOULD be obvious that I just realize it's moot. It's not like what I'm saying is a secret or difficult to find. You can start with the Mrs, you can start back when she was involved in the Watergate scandal since you like that subject and all continue on a range of subjects, all the way to current events.

Click to expand...

Speaking of moving goal post...

Let's go back a few post.

I replied to another poster. You replied to this part of my post, "Do a little research. You will shorty find that the country could not get any lower than it was under those administrations." with this, "In terms of lying, I'm sorry.... the Clintons have the most impressive body of work." I've bolded an important point, I was speaking of presidential administrations. You decided to conflate Hillary's time as SOS and Bill's time as governor. And apparently every moment they have been breathing. Maybe Bill lied when he told his momma he didn't know who ate the last slice of pie. Okay, let's do that. I then asked for specific examples of lies told by the Clintons that would rise to the level of the lies told by corrupt presidential administrations like Nixon's. You have now replied 3 times with a mix of rhetoric and obfuscation. What you have not replied with is a single example. It's pretty clear why not.

Ace the research thing on the Clintons is so easy. All you need to know is that if their lips are moving, they are either eating or lying. So there you go, if you don't see food, they be lyin.

Shadowrider said:

Ace the research thing on the Clintons is so easy. All you need to know is that if their lips are moving, they are either eating or lying. So there you go, if you don't see food, they be lyin.

Click to expand...

While that is cute, it ignores the very bases of the issue. The question is not if they lie, all politicians lie. Yes, Bill lied about getting a hummer. Yes, Hillary lied about a video. Reagan lied about selling arms to a terrorist nation in direct violation of U.S. law. Nixon lied about covering up a break in Democratic National Committee headquarters. A act that would lead to the first resignation of a sitting president in U.S. history. Bush lied about WMD's leading to a $2 trillion war that left 4000 U.S. soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis dead and destabilized the entire region giving rise to ISIS. Kennedy lied about invading Cuba. The list of lies told by politicians is legion, no one doubts that. But the assertion that the Clintons' lies somehow rise above all the others is simply absurd.

Ace_on_the_Turn said:

While that is cute, it ignores the very bases of the issue. The question is not if they lie, all politicians lie. Yes, Bill lied about getting a hummer. Yes, Hillary lied about a video. Reagan lied about selling arms to a terrorist nation in direct violation of U.S. law. Nixon lied about covering up a break in Democratic National Committee headquarters. A act that would lead to the first resignation of a sitting president in U.S. history. Bush lied about WMD's leading to a $2 trillion war that left 4000 U.S. soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis dead and destabilized the entire region giving rise to ISIS. Kennedy lied about invading Cuba. The list of lies told by politicians is legion, no one doubts that. But the assertion that the Clintons' lies somehow rise above all the others is simply absurd.

Click to expand...

The problem is with the people who excuse the lies and misdeeds, allowing such politicians to take office, to continue in office, and to seek further office.

Applying a scale where some lying or bad behavior is acceptable and the remainder is not is no way to measure the acceptability of a person for an office of public trust. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, of the Constitution prohibits anyone convicted on impeachment from continuing in office, and seeking further, any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Public knowledge of anyone with those characteristics should never be place in office, or be reelected to office by the electorate.

Woody

Ace_on_the_Turn said:

Speaking of moving goal post...

Let's go back a few post.

I replied to another poster. You replied to this part of my post, "Do a little research. You will shorty find that the country could not get any lower than it was under those administrations." with this, "In terms of lying, I'm sorry.... the Clintons have the most impressive body of work." I've bolded an important point, I was speaking of presidential administrations. You decided to conflate Hillary's time as SOS and Bill's time as governor. And apparently every moment they have been breathing. Maybe Bill lied when he told his momma he didn't know who ate the last slice of pie. Okay, let's do that. I then asked for specific examples of lies told by the Clintons that would rise to the level of the lies told by corrupt presidential administrations like Nixon's. You have now replied 3 times with a mix of rhetoric and obfuscation. What you have not replied with is a single example. It's pretty clear why not.

Click to expand...

Look at you, trying to get all CSI with semantics and stomping your feet because I won't do your research for you. Ace, typically, you're basically not worth of intelligent and logical discussion. This isn't an arrogance thing on my part, it's self preservation. It's just that you are for whatever reason, desperate to argue with conservatives to no end and you don't care about the result so long as you might seem right in your mind. The red herrings, moving goalposts, and bickering about sematics while constantly point a finger at Bush while trying to be coy about your political convictions is just too pedestrian for me. I dunno if a conservative banged one of your girlfriends, or if you somehow magically believe that's why your Cowboys are a dumpster fire for a team, whatever the reason is, you might seek counsel. Coming on here and constantly picking childish fights won't fill the void my friend. In all fairness, I did tell you where to start with the Clintons.

The "Bush lied about WMDs" claims definitely validate what I just said..... or if it's a more frightening situation of you actually believe that.... then again..... I can't have a discussion with someone that seemingly references the DU and MSNBC for their information.

GMThunder said:

Ace, typically, you're basically not worth of intelligent and logical discussion.

Click to expand...

Yet you continue to reply to my post again and again...

GMThunder said:

I dunno if a conservative banged one of your girlfriends, or if you somehow magically believe that's why your Cowboys are a dumpster fire for a team, whatever the reason is, you might seek counsel.

Click to expand...

Now that, gentlemen, is how you ad hominem.

GMThunder said:

Coming on here and constantly picking childish fights won't fill the void my friend.

Click to expand...

Now, remind us, who was it that started this "fight"? I didn't respond to you, you responded to me.

GMThunder said:

In all fairness, I did tell you where to start with the Clintons.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, you made a claim and have yet to produce a single example. Oh, you are more than willing to attack me on a personal level. You are more than willing to imply that I'm mistaken in my belief that Bush lied about WMD's. You're more than willing to pound out word after word after word. Yet, what you're not willing to do is to substantiate your claim.

Unsubscribed...

CHenry said:

Unsubscribed...

Click to expand...

Agreed. He's never worth the trouble...

http://www.creators.com/opinion/dick-morris/hillary-s-list-of-lies.html


This is from 2008.


The USA Today-Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.
Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

— Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

— Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

— She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

— She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

— She didn't know about the pardons of members of the violent Puerto Rico nationalist group FALN.

— She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

— Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

— She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

— She didn't know that the Peter Paul fund-raiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

— She opposed NAFTA at the time.

— She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

— She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

— She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

— The Rose Law Firm billing records showed up on their own.

— She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

— She was always a Yankees fan.

— She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400 to 12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

— She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev.

Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.
McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Richard Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if, but when), the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today-Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a "strong, decisive leader," 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain, while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama (61 percent said it of Hillary). Obama has looked weak handling the Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble.

Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC