Cruz statement may not have been a lie. But it was certainly dishonest and used to mislead. That is at least as bad as an outright lie. It certainly isn't any better. If you want to argue about the semantics of his dishonesty not being an outright lie, then that's fine, but it doesn't help Cruz and his position on AGW at all.
Just to be clear I don't give two squirts of goose @#$% about Cruz but all this crap about "lies" gets old, the above is not a lie, not like... you know blaming 4 soldiers dying on a movie is a lie. Some lies are worse than others.
I'm saying he cherry picked stats to perpetuate a lie. Politicians playing games with the truth hurts our country and Cruz is an expert at this type of deception. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe you should sit in time out for a while.
I'll end this. I originally asked you to point out the specific lie. You are stating that Cruz is lying to us that AGW isn't happening because you believe it is. This does not make it fact which means that Cruz is only stating a fact that is contrary to your belief, not a lie. No need to go on about all the evidence backing your belief, the climate is changing and it always has. don't tax me for it bro. FWIW Cruz is a politician which is another word for liar so, what do you expect?
I don't want to get too much sidetracked here. But who was lying about the movie? Were the Libyan fighters who participated in the assault lying? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?_r=0 “[f]ighters involved in the assault…said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.” During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. [...] On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world. As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him. In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/18/14] Or were people who may have had intel about it lying? "A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review of the Benghazi attack found that "some intelligence suggests" an inflammatory video linked to violent protests around the region led terror groups to conduct "similar attacks with advanced warning":" http://mediamatters.org/research/20...e-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289#link6 Or was Hillary Clinton and others from the Obama state department lying when they used this information from the actual attackers in their comments about it? I think Cruz' dishonesty about AGW is at least as bad as Hillary's supposed "lies". If you want to get on people for throwing the label of lies too freely then you might want to address those that are calling Hillary a liar for using some of the intel listed above.
These are your last 3 posts replying to 3 different posters. Are you Marco Rubio or are you in 1st grade? I honestly can't tell.
Cruz throwing his volunteers in Hawaii under the bus is worse than the flyer they put out. The flyer seems mostly fair to me. It's already being reported that Rubio's advisers are suggesting he drop out. Rubio is likely to lose Florida after all. The part of the flyer that is disingenuous, imo, is that voting for a candidate that will drop out is a wasted vote. Even if Rubio ultimately drops out, votes still create delegates that impact the election outcome. But Cruz saying he has another maverick saying things from his campaign he doesn't approve of makes him look like either: (a) he's full of it, or (b) he doesn't have firm control over his campaign. You hope it's the former, because if he can't even control his campaign, how can he govern the country? In other news: Cherry-picking data to leave your audience a false impression so that you can win an argument is lying. Okie, if you think peer-reviewed scientific research into climate change is engaged in this same kind of simple cherry picking, I don't know what to tell you.
No. Unfortunately this forum is infested with some of the proudest serial liars to be found anywhere on the internet. This is not a new development. It has been this way for a good number of years now. We are just seeing it demonstrated here by those people and a few others, yet again. This is business as usual from these people here. I really have not encountered another forum to match it in that regard and I have been around to a number of them.
We've been through the verification of Ted as a big liar before. Anyone still trying to claim otherwise are either disingenuous Cruzoids or imbeciles in need of our compassion. These are just the three liar liar "pants on fire" statements on page one of his Politifact page.
What is sad is that you clearly have no idea just how harmful your posts are to the candidate you claim to support. If people disagree with you, they are "liars." When you are clearly shown evidence that your candidate has been dishonest you ignore the evidence and attack the messenger. Example? Mr. Cruz secretly borrowed a large amount of money at low interest, $1.2 million dollars, from Goldman Sachs, where his wife held a prominent position as a managing director, and obtained that money at a crucial point in his primary race for the senate seat he now holds. Cruz reported it as "personal funds," funds he described as “which is all we had saved,” when it was, in fact, a personal loan from Goldman Sachs. He was required to report the source of loans used for his campaign and did not. Cruz, in other words, used his wife's position to get a large low interest loan that helped him win his campaign, and obtained that loan from a very large bank indeed, at the same time he was running as a "champion of the little man" and against "the big banks." Mr. Cruz was dishonest. Your response? You could care less. It doesn't fit your twisted internal narrative regarding Senator Cruz, so you dismiss it. Ted Cruz is a dishonest man, and you are being dishonest with yourself by ignoring it. In my humble opinion.
It was a 'margin' loan, secured by his his securities portfolio, that any customer there can get and which a great many currently do. It is not him that has been dishonest about this, but those who baselessly accuse him, some to this very day, apparently including yourself. In fact this is all very well known now, even though proactive smear merchants, which of course are led by the Democrat left and especially routine leftist liars like those on MSNBC, but unfortunately not limited to them this cycle, knowingly continue to repeat and disseminate false information about this. The politics of personal destruction. Smear tactics. Lynch mob like efforts to hurt and ruin the lives of people based on flat out lies (such as Hands up, don't shoot!). Unfortunately, these are the tactics that you people routinely distinguish yourselves by these days. If you had any sense of shame, you would be ashamed. Clearly, you are too far gone for any of that. Also, just FYI, I have no intention of wearing myself out trying to clarify every lie you people tell around here, going around in circles with you while you lie, deflect and deny, spinning still more lies to try to prop up the previous lies that are now looking pretty shaky. That would be a full time job and a rabbit trail that never comes up for air. Not that I expect you to follow my advice here, but if your arguments were as strong as some of you want to think that they are, you would not have to tell so many lies to sustain them. Also, try applying the same standards to your own candidates that you apply to Ted Cruz. You will never do it, because they would never survive it. Ted Cruz is surviving it though, your lies, your baseless smears and your constant false witness against him, notwithstanding.
Well, here's some good news for Cruz... one of the Bush family has jumped on the TrusTED train. Neil Bush, Jeb and GWB's younger brother, has joined the Ted Cruz national finance team. You don't remember Neil Bush? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/neil-bush-backs-ted-cruz
Not true - Idaho, particularly Northern Idaho is a white supremacist haven for Aryan Nations & Neo Nazi types. Strength there hits right at Trump's base pretty hard.
