Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

CNN actually did a good report on the lies spoken by the candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I remember seeing fuckers in NJ celebrating. Maybe not thousands. But sizable enough to be compared to the Chicago police protests a couple weeks ago.

andy7171 wrote:I remember seeing **** in NJ celebrating. Maybe not thousands. But sizable enough to be compared to the Chicago police protests a couple weeks ago.

houndawg wrote:

andy7171 wrote:I remember seeing **** in NJ celebrating. Maybe not thousands. But sizable enough to be compared to the Chicago police protests a couple weeks ago.

Sure, AndyTrump

I saw what I saw.

andy7171 wrote:I saw what I saw.

Spanos told me they destroyed all the photo/video evidence.

andy7171 wrote:I saw what I saw.

*pats on head*

Of course you did, sweetheart. Of course you did.

Interesting article. My favorite was the Bernie Sanders lie about income inequality (where the US actually ranks 16th) and the economic power of the top 1% (where the US trails Brazil, among other powerhouses). He'll drop out after Super Tuesday.

Trump has a low reputation for veracity in public life. He reminds me of writer Mary McCarthy's famous quote about Donk author Lillian Hellman: "Every word Hellman writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"

Ivytalk wrote:Interesting article. My favorite was the Bernie Sanders lie about income inequality (where the US actually ranks 16th) and the economic power of the top 1% (where the US trails Brazil, among other powerhouses). He'll drop out after Super Tuesday.

Trump has a low reputation for veracity in public life. He reminds me of writer Mary McCarthy's famous quote about Donk author Lillian Hellman: "Every word Hellman writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"

Dammit Ivy, now I'm going to have to read the article.

Grizalltheway wrote:

andy7171 wrote:I saw what I saw.

*pats on head*

Of course you did, sweetheart. Of course you did.

Bush on Climate Change: Jeb Bush claimed that the science is unclear as to how much humans contribute to global warming. The United Nations climate change research organization, however, said it was "extremely likely" that more than half of the warming since 1950 is due to human activities.

Is this really a lie??

89Hen wrote:

Bush on Climate Change: Jeb Bush claimed that the science is unclear as to how much humans contribute to global warming. The United Nations climate change research organization, however, said it was "extremely likely" that more than half of the warming since 1950 is due to human activities.

Is this really a lie??

How about this one?

O'Malley on Wages: In October, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley claimed that "70 percent of us are earning the same, or less than we were 12 years ago." Not true. Average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers are up 5.8 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.

The two statements don't relate to each other. The two stats can absolutely co-exist. That's is a shitty job of fact-checking.

CAA Flagship wrote:

89Hen wrote: Is this really a lie??

How about this one?

O'Malley on Wages: In October, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley claimed that "70 percent of us are earning the same, or less than we were 12 years ago." Not true. Average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers are up 5.8 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.

The two statements don't relate to each other. The two stats can absolutely co-exist. That's is a shitty job of fact-checking.

Yeah, but anything out of O'Malley's mouth is either a lie or a shitty idea.

89Hen wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:
How about this one?


The two statements don't relate to each other. The two stats can absolutely co-exist. That's is a shitty job of fact-checking.

Yeah, but anything out of O'Malley's mouth is either a lie or a shitty idea.

True. He is terrible.
I'm just railing on the "fact-checkers". If you are going to refute a claim, it's best to refute it with relative stats.
Morans.

CAA Flagship wrote:

89Hen wrote: Yeah, but anything out of O'Malley's mouth is either a lie or a shitty idea.

True. He is terrible.
I'm just railing on the "fact-checkers". If you are going to refute a claim, it's best to refute it with relative stats.
Morans.

Fact checking has become a partisan activity over the years, there's little objectivity in it anymore. Some fact checkers lean right, the other fact checkers lean left, and the facts lean right with them.

GannonFan wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: True. He is terrible.
I'm just railing on the "fact-checkers". If you are going to refute a claim, it's best to refute it with relative stats.
Morans.

Fact checking has become a partisan activity over the years, there's little objectivity in it anymore. Some fact checkers lean right, the other fact checkers lean left, and the facts lean right with them.

Do you have any facts to back that up?

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Fact checking has become a partisan activity over the years, there's little objectivity in it anymore. Some fact checkers lean right, the other fact checkers lean left, and the facts lean right with them.

Do you have any facts to back that up?

Of course not. It's GannonFan, King of the Fence-Straddle.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Do you have any facts to back that up?

Of course not. It's GannonFan, King of the Fence-Straddle.

And it ain't easy, half of the people are either telling me they're against fences in general and the other of the people are trying to take my fence down and move it south of here.

Besides, it's not fence-straddling - I clearly jump back and forth over the fence depending upon the particular issue.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Of course not. It's GannonFan, King of the Fence-Straddle.

And it ain't easy, half of the people are either telling me they're against fences in general and the other of the people are trying to take my fence down and move it south of here.

Besides, it's not fence-straddling - I clearly jump back and forth over the fence depending upon the particular issue.

You're right. You're a regular shuttlecock! (No homo.)

Over the years I've railed against claims I've seen from time to time that the "ignorant" vote favors Republicans. I think exit polling suggests that the opposite is the case; that the vote among the most ignorant people in the population favors the Democrats by a substantial margin.

But this Trump thing gives those that claim it's the Republicans a powerful argument. I think you do have to be a complete ignoramus to be supporting Trump and an awful lot of potential Republican primary voters are doing that.

JohnStOnge wrote:Over the years I've railed against claims I've seen from time to time that the "ignorant" vote favors Republicans. I think exit polling suggests that the opposite is the case; that the vote among the most ignorant people in the population favors the Democrats by a substantial margin.

But this Trump thing gives those that claim it's the Republicans a powerful argument. I think you do have to be a complete ignoramus to be supporting Trump and an awful lot of potential Republican primary voters are doing that.

Depends on how you define an ignorant vote. If it's voting your own self interest (which I believe many successful Republican voters do) than if your poor, isn't a vote for the Democratic Party smarter?

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Over the years I've railed against claims I've seen from time to time that the "ignorant" vote favors Republicans. I think exit polling suggests that the opposite is the case; that the vote among the most ignorant people in the population favors the Democrats by a substantial margin.

But this Trump thing gives those that claim it's the Republicans a powerful argument. I think you do have to be a complete ignoramus to be supporting Trump and an awful lot of potential Republican primary voters are doing that.

Depends on how you define an ignorant vote. If it's voting your own self interest (which I believe many successful Republican voters do) than if your poor, isn't a vote for the Democratic Party smarter?

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
Depends on how you define an ignorant vote. If it's voting your own self interest (which I believe many successful Republican voters do) than if your poor, isn't a vote for the Democratic Party smarter?

Go on...

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:

Go on...

First: *you're
Second: Please rewrite that second sentence so that it is clear as to what you are trying to say. Are you saying only Republicans vote for their self interest? Are you saying that voting Donk is smarter if you are poor?