Embeciles?So, Assup. Are you supporting Hillary? Didn't you once say lying is wrong? How can you support Hillary if that is the case? You can't be so stupid as to think she is an honest person.
From our resident inebriate and undoubtedly the author of the single out race-related threads and posts in the history of this forum!
Not to mention the most aggressive male on male predator.
Lmao @ JDrunk, the JUNK collector! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
So, Assup. Are you supporting Hillary? Didn't you once say lying is wrong? How can you support Hillary if that is the case? You can't be so stupid as to think she is an honest person. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThe truth is important. These percentages are of statements that are undeniable quotes made by each of the listed candidates. All statements available at the posted link.
The truth is important. These percentages are of statements that are undeniable quotes made by each of the listed candidates. All statements available at the posted link.
Clinton 28% mostly false or worseTrump 66% mostly false or worse
- True39 ( 27%)(39)
- Mostly True33 ( 23%)(33)
- Half True29 ( 20%)(29)
- Mostly False23 ( 16%)(23)
- False16 ( 11%)(16)
- Pants on Fire2 ( 1%)(2)
Rubio 41% mostly false or worse
- True1 ( 1%)(1)
- Mostly True5 ( 6%)(5)
- Half True13 ( 17%)(13)
- Mostly False12 ( 16%)(12)
- False30 ( 39%)(30)
- Pants on Fire16 ( 21%)
Jeb Bush By far the most honest of the republican candidate 31% mostly false or worse
- True17 ( 14%)(17)
- Mostly True28 ( 23%)(28)
- Half True28 ( 23%)(28)
- Mostly False29 ( 24%)(29)
- False18 ( 15%)(18)
- ants on Fire2 ( 2%
Sanders 29% mostly false or worse
- True14 ( 19%)(14)
- Mostly True21 ( 29%)(21)
- Half True15 ( 21%)(15)
- Mostly False16 ( 22%)(16)
- False4 ( 6%)(4)
- Pants on Fire2 ( 3%
Cruz 69% mostly false or worse
- True9 ( 20%)(9)
- Mostly True15 ( 33%)(15)
- Half True8 ( 18%)(8)
- Mostly False7 ( 16%)(7)
- False6 ( 13%)(6)
- Pants on Fire0
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
- True3 ( 4%)(3)
- Mostly True11 ( 16%)(11)
- Half True8 ( 11%)(8)
- Mostly False21 ( 30%)(21)
- False23 ( 33%)(23)
- Pants on Fire4 ( 6%
Ben Carson No true statements so far. 84% of his statements mostly false or worse- True0(0)
- Mostly True1 ( 4%)(1)
- Half True3 ( 12%)(3)
- Mostly False6 ( 24%)(6)
- False12 ( 48%)(12)
- Pants on Fire3 ( 12%
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
The truth is important. These percentages are of statements that are undeniable quotes made by each of the listed candidates. All statements available at the posted link.
Clinton 28% mostly false or worseTrump 66% mostly false or worse
- True39 ( 27%)(39)
- Mostly True33 ( 23%)(33)
- Half True29 ( 20%)(29)
- Mostly False23 ( 16%)(23)
- False16 ( 11%)(16)
- Pants on Fire2 ( 1%)(2)
Rubio 41% mostly false or worse
- True1 ( 1%)(1)
- Mostly True5 ( 6%)(5)
- Half True13 ( 17%)(13)
- Mostly False12 ( 16%)(12)
- False30 ( 39%)(30)
- Pants on Fire16 ( 21%)
Jeb Bush By far the most honest of the republican candidate 31% mostly false or worse
- True17 ( 14%)(17)
- Mostly True28 ( 23%)(28)
- Half True28 ( 23%)(28)
- Mostly False29 ( 24%)(29)
- False18 ( 15%)(18)
- ants on Fire2 ( 2%
Sanders 29% mostly false or worse
- True14 ( 19%)(14)
- Mostly True21 ( 29%)(21)
- Half True15 ( 21%)(15)
- Mostly False16 ( 22%)(16)
- False4 ( 6%)(4)
- Pants on Fire2 ( 3%
Cruz 69% mostly false or worse
- True9 ( 20%)(9)
- Mostly True15 ( 33%)(15)
- Half True8 ( 18%)(8)
- Mostly False7 ( 16%)(7)
- False6 ( 13%)(6)
- Pants on Fire0
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
- True3 ( 4%)(3)
- Mostly True11 ( 16%)(11)
- Half True8 ( 11%)(8)
- Mostly False21 ( 30%)(21)
- False23 ( 33%)(23)
- Pants on Fire4 ( 6%
Ben Carson No true statements so far. 84% of his statements mostly false or worse- True0(0)
- Mostly True1 ( 4%)(1)
- Half True3 ( 12%)(3)
- Mostly False6 ( 24%)(6)
- False12 ( 48%)(12)
- Pants on Fire3 ( 12%
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Choosing claims to check
Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.
You mean the left wing web site Politico who has bee caught lying about what candidates really said or sanitized what other candidates have said. That web site? Originally Posted by JD BarleycornNo link. Again.
Hey, Masterdickmuncher, you missed this part published by Politifact wherein they admit their biased in what the select to check. So, Masterdickmuncher, your misuse of their statistics is meaningless and reveals you for the jackass you are: Originally Posted by I B HankeringEvery day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. What biased assholes! We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. How dare they check things and places that have an undeniable and verifiable record. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones. How dare they use the freedom of the press to decide what's newsworthy! You ignore or can't seem to figure out that the exact same bias is used on all the "targets" in the same manner. It is equally applied to both parties.
No link. Again.A majority of people think Hillary is untrustworthy. What's your point? It's a fact.
But this should be easy for you to prove.
Let's see it. Your proof.
Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. What biased assholes! We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. How dare they check things and places that have an undeniable and verifiable record. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones. How dare they use the freedom of the press to decide what's newsworthy! You ignore or can't seem to figure out that the exact same bias is used on all the "targets" in the same manner. It is equally applied to both parties.
As he coughs out another load of shit, piss, and cum, he points his finger and condemns the site for using statements it can confirm. Not the ones made as the candidates do their best to tear she-be-a-twat's ears off the sides of her head while they skull fuck her. No. They dare use the ones stated in public and are on the record. They take publicly made statements and check to see if the truth has been spoken. Simple, right? They said something about something and are being held accountable.
Yes j douche-bag. The "desperation" as you call it is getting very thick, very deep. You keep saying over and over and over who the liars are. You tell us without the wealth (or usually any at all) of links that should support your statements. And you are wrong time after time. You put your hands over your ears and go "ararararararararararararraara rr". Then you post another steaming piece of shit.
She-be-a-flaming-asshole is you with Tourette's. And makes even less sense (if that is possible) than you. The more viscous her attack, the more out on a limb she is.
Cog said honesty is important. I agreed and posted a pertinent set of like method stats that were straight forward and not cherry picked. They were applied the same for all names listed. And unfortunately went against what she wanted to believe or hear. Instead of refuting or disagreeing she pulled her usual bullshit. She used to have something to say. Now she is taking the fact out on us that her prostate is part of a lumberjack's set of wind chimes (don't ask, it's a long and sordid tale).
She is now joining gay rey as the only the second person I've put on ignore. The sound of the bat putting her head into the cheap seats just doesn't do it for me anymore.
I'm going to miss the little bastard. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. What biased assholes! We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. How dare they check things and places that have an undeniable and verifiable record. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones. How dare they use the freedom of the press to decide what's newsworthy! You ignore or can't seem to figure out that the exact same bias is used on all the "targets" in the same manner. It is equally applied to both parties.You'd be the insufferable prick too stupid to realize that it's your drool of shit and piss that you're swimming in, masterdickmuncher. The people at Politifact choose what they do investigate, and they choose what they don't investigate, masterdickmuncher; that's bias, you stupid jackass. Furthermore, you insufferable prick, if one person is investigated once and found to be guilty of misstatement, they are given a rating of lying 100% of the time, masterdickmuncher. Similarly, if another person is investigated once and found to be truthful, that person is given a rating of being truthful 100% of the time, masterdickmuncher. Given that no one is investigated 100% of the time makes Politifact's percentage of lies to truth ratings meaningless, masterdickmuncher, and there's no accounting by Politifact for the numerous times liars like Odumbo and Hildabeast repeat the same lies over and over again, you insufferable prick.
As he coughs out another load of shit, piss, and cum, he points his finger and condemns the site for using statements it can confirm. Not the ones made as the candidates do their best to tear she-be-a-twat's ears off the sides of her head while they skull fuck her. No. They dare use the ones stated in public and are on the record. They take publicly made statements and check to see if the truth has been spoken. Simple, right? They said something about something and are being held accountable.
Yes j douche-bag. The "desperation" as you call it is getting very thick, very deep. You keep saying over and over and over who the liars are. You tell us without the wealth (or usually any at all) of links that should support your statements. And you are wrong time after time. You put your hands over your ears and go "ararararararararararararr aara rr". Then you post another steaming piece of shit.
She-be-a-flaming-asshole is you with Tourette's. And makes even less sense (if that is possible) than you. The more viscous her attack, the more out on a limb she is.
Cog said honesty is important. I agreed and posted a pertinent set of like method stats that were straight forward and not cherry picked. They were applied the same for all names listed. And unfortunately went against what she wanted to believe or hear. Instead of refuting or disagreeing she pulled her usual bullshit. She used to have something to say. Now she is taking the fact out on us that her prostate is part of a lumberjack's set of wind chimes (don't ask, it's a long and sordid tale).
She is now joining gay rey as the only the second person I've put on ignore. The sound of the bat putting her head into the cheap seats just doesn't do it for me anymore.
I'm going to miss the little bastard. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman