Cruz crushed the Left-heads at CNBC... no wonder the they're wetting their pant over this guy!

[JimBowie1958]

Jim will you please quit being nice to the liberal bastards in the Democrat party? Sanders likes guns because every asshole with a swinging dick in Vermont is a hunter. If he wants to get elected, he'd better like guns or pretend to.

Well unlike the Marxists, AvgGuy, I dont assume that if a liberal says something that agrees with me that he must be lying to me.

There are good liberals, it is the Marxists that try to pass as liberals that are the fucking problem, not honest straight forward liberals like Sanders.

BTW, I have a known a lot of liberals that are strong 2A types, you just never hear about them. The Dems are ashamed of them and the GOP doesnt want it out in circulation.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Fox is going to moderate a Democrat debate, when/where??????? I want to see that one.

. Fox BusinessChannel Around Nov 7th

I misread the question. Fox Business is going to host the GOP on Nov 10th. Demi's are too chicken to subject themselves to real questions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I misread the question. Fox Business is going to host the GOP on Nov 10th. Demi's are too chicken to subject themselves to real questions.

You know the Dems refuse to do debates on FOX. They are afraid of hostile questions for their fragile old candidates.

Hillary vote-for-my-vagina Clinton might fall to tears.

 

[edthecynic]

I caught Cruz lying about "villain" first time Cruz told the lie.

It wasnt a lie, but an honest take on the moderator's snarky question and tone.

You are, on the other hand, just pure grade 100% full of shit.

That's a lie to defend a liar.

There is no way substituting "villain" for "version of a presidential campaign" is an "honest" take on the moderator's question, and you know it.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's a lie to defend a liar.

There is no way substituting "villain" for "version of a presidential campaign" is an "honest" take on the moderator's question, and you know it.

It isnt a lie to observe that Trump was being spun as a bad guy by the moderator and in the context of a comic book that would make Trump the villain, stupid ass.

 

[edthecynic]

The lies just keep on coming, and the Right wonders why no honest person ever gives them any credibility.

Zeif-geist

 

[edthecynic]

That's a lie to defend a liar.

There is no way substituting "villain" for "version of a presidential campaign" is an "honest" take on the moderator's question, and you know it.

It isnt a lie to observe that Trump was being spun as a bad guy by the moderator and in the context of a comic book that would make Trump the villain, stupid ass.

No Trump was clearly being spun as a comic book CLOWN. "Villain" was purely Cruz's projection of HIS opinion of Trump.

 

[mudwhistle]

The lies just keep on coming, and the Right wonders why no honest person ever gives them any credibility.

Zeif-geist

Strange.....I double-checked this....and even the blogs that claim this is a lie can't say that this isn't absolutely correct.

Hillary is a liar and a cheat, and always has been.

You want a liar and a cheat in the White House.......and this will spell disaster for this country.

She'll be another Kim Jong Ill.......who claimed he didn't have to defecate like the rest of us humans.

Heck.....she even dresses the way Little Kim dressed.

We don't need another president that feels that there are rules for us and he or she doesn't have to be held back by them.

 

[edthecynic]

The lies just keep on coming, and the Right wonders why no honest person ever gives them any credibility.

Zeif-geist

Strange.....I double-checked this....and even the blogs that claim this is a lie can't say that this isn't absolutely correct.

Hillary is a liar and a cheat, and always has been.

You want a liar and a cheat in the White House.......and this will spell disaster for this country.

She'll be another Kim Jong Ill.......who claimed he didn't have to defecate like the rest of us humans.

Heck.....she even dresses the way Little Kim dressed.

We don't need another president that feels that there are rules for us and he or she doesn't have to be held back by them.

LIAR!

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I agree... The Left uses deceit and fraud as a means to influence it's ignorant constituency... and there's not 150 IQ points in that entire ideology.

Well, I beg to differ.

There are still a whole lot of very intelligent, honest liberals who still love their country as much as anyone else.

The problem is that they have bought into the Marxist rhetoric that is toxic to the public. Sanders seems nonMarxist, looking at his policy proposals and votes. For example he supports gun rights and no Marxist does that.

Well I then must disagree. As anyone who has bought into the Marxist rhetoric, is not an honest person. There's absolutely nothing virtuous in about any facet of Left-think. Honesty and all forms of virtue are impossible within any facet of Relativism.

They may think of themselves as honest, but they're not. Nature precludes the means to simultaneously adhere to both the thesis and the antithesis.

 

[mudwhistle]

The lies just keep on coming, and the Right wonders why no honest person ever gives them any credibility.

Zeif-geist

Strange.....I double-checked this....and even the blogs that claim this is a lie can't say that this isn't absolutely correct.

Hillary is a liar and a cheat, and always has been.

You want a liar and a cheat in the White House.......and this will spell disaster for this country.

She'll be another Kim Jong Ill.......who claimed he didn't have to defecate like the rest of us humans.

Heck.....she even dresses the way Little Kim dressed.

We don't need another president that feels that there are rules for us and he or she doesn't have to be held back by them.

LIAR!

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel".

And of course....you have no link to support this fabrication.

 

[edthecynic]

The lies just keep on coming, and the Right wonders why no honest person ever gives them any credibility.

Zeif-geist

Strange.....I double-checked this....and even the blogs that claim this is a lie can't say that this isn't absolutely correct.

Hillary is a liar and a cheat, and always has been.

You want a liar and a cheat in the White House.......and this will spell disaster for this country.

She'll be another Kim Jong Ill.......who claimed he didn't have to defecate like the rest of us humans.

Heck.....she even dresses the way Little Kim dressed.

We don't need another president that feels that there are rules for us and he or she doesn't have to be held back by them.

LIAR!

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel".

And of course....you have no link to support this fabrication.

The link was already posted. It is a quote directly from Zeifman's own book.

Furthermore Zeifman in a published interview admitted he had no power to fire her, so everything you posted is a proven lie.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf

 

[mudwhistle]

The lies just keep on coming, and the Right wonders why no honest person ever gives them any credibility.

Zeif-geist

Strange.....I double-checked this....and even the blogs that claim this is a lie can't say that this isn't absolutely correct.

Hillary is a liar and a cheat, and always has been.

You want a liar and a cheat in the White House.......and this will spell disaster for this country.

She'll be another Kim Jong Ill.......who claimed he didn't have to defecate like the rest of us humans.

Heck.....she even dresses the way Little Kim dressed.

We don't need another president that feels that there are rules for us and he or she doesn't have to be held back by them.

LIAR!

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel".

And of course....you have no link to support this fabrication.

The link was already posted. It is a quote directly from Zeifman's own book.

Furthermore Zeifman in a published interview admitted he had no power to fire her, so everything you posted is a proven lie.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf

Oh....media matters is Hillary's outfit.

Epic fail.

 

[mudwhistle]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

 

[edthecynic]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

 

[mudwhistle]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

 

[edthecynic]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

 

[mudwhistle]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

And she didn't confiscate FBI files that showed up in her private quarters when she was First Lady either. Somebody else put them there. She never lied or done anything wrong in her life.

Yeah...right.

I read the article you linked on a pdf. It said clearly that Hillary made a suggestion that was illegal. I didn't see any of the crap you're talking about on there. Perhaps because I'm reading it from a cell......but the shit you're claiming wasn't in that pdf.

 

[edthecynic]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

And she didn't confiscate FBI files that showed up in her private quarters when she was First Lady either. Somebody else put them there. She never lied or done anything wrong in her life.

Yeah...right.

I read the article you linked on a pdf. It said clearly that Hillary made a suggestion that was illegal. I didn't see any of the crap you're talking about on there. Perhaps because I'm reading it from a cell......but the shit you're claiming wasn't in that pdf.

As I have shown over and over, when caught lying the Right just continue to lie. Hillary suggested nothing, Zeifman's own book said it was RODINO, the CHAIRMAN of the committee.

And the link you didn't read was in an earlier post before the pdf.