Stable Genius Elon?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And here it is again Jim’s logic

if they are not crimes what’s the problem

Jim give up . You defend this clown right off the bat. But know since you committed yourself to his cause

You decide to do what you always do try to make some false equivalences. And in double down because you can’t win the argument.

And the only argument I made was if his lies were proven truth would Republicans make him resign?

And it’s looking like they won’t hopefully they’ll come to their senses
But now they are proving that they are not the party of integrity, honesty, truthfulness they’re only interested in keeping his seat at any cost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is Blumenthal's lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is Blumenthal's lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

So I'll ask again, what did Blumenthal do that is a crime? I'll wait.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I'll ask again, what did Blumenthal do that is a crime? I'll wait.

If you do something before the law is passed to make it a crime you didn’t commit a crime.
The law in this country is not retroactive.
Jim’s thinking of his dream, a totalitarian country run by an authoritarian who will make everyone he doesn’t like behave correctly and control the branches of government to make it happen.
Like his hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I'll ask again, what did Blumenthal do that is a crime? I'll wait.

stolen valor is a crime. he lied for years about serving in vietnam.

i’m still waiting. paul, how many pies is ok? and how many is too many?

I’m still waiting. I answered your question.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

stolen valor is a crime. he lied for years about serving in vietnam.

i’m still waiting. paul, how many pies is ok? and how many is too many?

I’m still waiting. I answered your question.

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying. Blumenthal said he served in vietnam in 2003 and there was no law against saying that. He said he misspoke and other times said he did not serve. The law says he has to receive a benefit and he did not.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying. Blumenthal said he served in vietnam in 2003 and there was no law against saying that. He said he misspoke and other times said he did not serve.

sorry, i assumed you could read, my bad. I said here in this thread, , that “today”, his lie is a crime. It wasn’t then, but is is today. true or false?

any special reason why you’re too cowardly to defend your statement that it’s about the number of lies? what’s the magic number paul? how many lies are ok?

the answer is, “how ever many the democrat tells, that number is ok. however many the republican tells. is too many”.

Right?

biden was caught plagiarizing and had told plenty of whoppers to puff himself up. And I don’t really care as many of them do it. but all of a sudden you guys are saying that lying disqualifies yiu from federal government. at least when republicans do it, that is.

Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying. and he’s an enormously popular hero to the left.

Must be convenient to cloak yourself in such hypocrisy.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is Blumenthal's lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden.

Santos has told hundreds or thousands of lies? how many fin hem are crimes, as blumenthals lie is?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

stolen valor is a crime. he lied for years about serving in vietnam.

i’m still waiting. paul, how many pies is ok? and how many is too many?

I’m still waiting. I answered your question.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sorry, i assumed you could read, my bad. I said here in this thread, , that “today”, his lie is a crime. It wasn’t then, but is is today. true or false?If it wasn't a crime then why are you still accusing Blumenthal of committing a crime? It is bc you are a scummy person who lies all the time. You lied here even though you admit he did not commit a crime you say he committed a crime but clearly know it is not a crime. How scummy is that? You keep saying he committed a crime which is a lie. He wasn't a crime when he said it and he received no benefit from it which is a part of the law and yet you intentionally lie about it. He didn't "lie for years". He said it and then admitted it was wrong and other times he clearly said he was not in Vietnam. Isn't that what you just did? You said something and then later said something else. So who is the liar here?

any special reason why you’re too cowardly to defend your statement that it’s about the number of lies? what’s the magic number paul? how many lies are ok?

the answer is, “how ever many the democrat tells, that number is ok. however many the republican tells. is too many”.

Right?

biden was caught plagiarizing and had told plenty of whoppers to puff himself up. And I don’t really care as many of them do it. but all of a sudden you guys are saying that lying disqualifies yiu from federal government. at least when republicans do it, that is.

Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying. and he’s an enormously popular hero to the left.

Must be convenient to cloak yourself in such hypocrisy.

So you just got caught lying again! It seems to be a common theme with you. I'll bump up that other thread to show what a scummy liar you are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So you just got caught lying again! It seems to be a common theme with you. I'll bump up that other thread to show what a scummy liar you are.

what lie didn’t tell paul? i said that what blumenthal did then, is a crime today.

you said it’s about the number of lies, but you flatly refuse to go into any detail about how that makes any sense at all.

i’m answering your questions, you’re dodging mine, because even you know you can’t respond without looking foolish.

go ahead an insult me again instead of answering.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wayne, since Blumenthal's lie is actually against the law, then on what basis could you conclude that Santos' lies are worse? Other than the fact that Santos is a republican, that is...

"false equivalences"

Wayne, no two events are exactly alike in every single detail. That doesn't mean they aren't somewhat comparable. Every single time yoru hypocrisy is shown, you cry about "false equivalence", yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never. I'm giving you a chance to do that here. Why is lie not worse that Santos'?

They passed a law to criminalize what Blumenthal did. SO again, please tell us why his lie is more benign than Santos'?

I'll wait.

What law would that be can’t wait because you have no idea what you’re talking about

But Let me guess stolen valor act ?

You can’t even read the law correctly

federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that he or she received the award.

a Congressional Medal of Honor,
a distinguished-service cross,
a Navy cross,
an Air Force cross,
a silver star,
a Purple Heart,
a Combat Infantryman's Badge,
a Combat Action Badge,
a Combat Medical Badge,
a Combat Action Ribbon,
a Combat Action Medal, or
any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law

I have 2 on the list .

Blumenthal Never claimed he was awarded any of those awards.

But he did say this

Blumenthal responded to a question about Iran by saying, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action, and no one wants it to be the first resort




yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never.

I have . you still can’t accept the difference . between a white lie
Or admit Santos behavior isn’t just a lie it’s totally fraudulent made up to misrepresent himself to voters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What law would that be can’t wait because you have no idea what you’re talking about

But Let me guess stolen valor act ?

You can’t even read the law correctly

federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that he or she received the award.

a Congressional Medal of Honor,
a distinguished-service cross,
a Navy cross,
an Air Force cross,
a silver star,
a Purple Heart,
a Combat Infantryman's Badge,
a Combat Action Badge,
a Combat Medical Badge,
a Combat Action Ribbon,
a Combat Action Medal, or
any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law

I have 2 on the list .

Blumenthal Never claimed he was awarded any of those awards.

But he did say this

Blumenthal responded to a question about Iran by saying, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action, and no one wants it to be the first resort




yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never.

I have . you still can’t accept the difference . between a white lie
Or admit Santos behavior isn’t just a lie it’s totally fraudulent made up to misrepresent himself to voters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's be very clear...you're telling us, that Blumenthal never claimed he served in the Vietnam War? IS that what you're saying?

FFS, it was a huge story at the time. He said repeatedly that he served "in Vietnam", and made references to when we all came back from Vietnam.

If, in fact, he has to claim he won medals to break that law, then you are 100% correct he didn't break that law, and I'm 100% wrong. But you are 100% wrong if you say he never claimed to have served in that war. He absolutely made that claim. Many times.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What law would that be can’t wait because you have no idea what you’re talking about

But Let me guess stolen valor act ?

You can’t even read the law correctly

federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that he or she received the award.

a Congressional Medal of Honor,
a distinguished-service cross,
a Navy cross,
an Air Force cross,
a silver star,
a Purple Heart,
a Combat Infantryman's Badge,
a Combat Action Badge,
a Combat Medical Badge,
a Combat Action Ribbon,
a Combat Action Medal, or
any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law

I have 2 on the list .

Blumenthal Never claimed he was awarded any of those awards.

But he did say this

Blumenthal responded to a question about Iran by saying, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action, and no one wants it to be the first resort




yet you never, ever specify why the equivalence is false. Never.

I have . you still can’t accept the difference . between a white lie
Or admit Santos behavior isn’t just a lie it’s totally fraudulent made up to misrepresent himself to voters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is from the New York Times...

quotes from Blumenthal, as reported by the New York Times...

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam"

In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,”

Asked about the Bridgeport rally, when he told the crowd, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said he did not recall the event.

But all you can do, is post a quote where he said he didn't serve...even Paul S knows what I'm referring to.

And this guy will keep getting re-elected in CT until he chooses not to run again. He can never be defeated, because the CT voters don't care about his lie.

But you have zero complaint when democrat voters ignore lies told by democrat politicians.

Wayne, I'd love for you to explain why you posted the Blumenthal quote which you chose to post (also in the NYT story I posted), yet you ignored the other quotes which prove he explicitly lied. What was yoru motive, if not just to serve your narrative as always?

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/n...lumenthal.html

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is from the New York Times...

quotes from Blumenthal, as reported by the New York Times...

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam"

In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,”

Asked about the Bridgeport rally, when he told the crowd, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said he did not recall the event.

But all you can do, is post a quote where he said he didn't serve...even Paul S knows what I'm referring to.

And this guy will keep getting re-elected in CT until he chooses not to run again. He can never be defeated, because the CT voters don't care about his lie.

But you have zero complaint when democrat voters ignore lies told by democrat politicians.

Wayne, I'd love for you to explain why you posted the Blumenthal quote which you chose to post (also in the NYT story I posted), yet you ignored the other quotes which prove he explicitly lied. What was yoru motive, if not just to serve your narrative as always?

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/n...lumenthal.html

Wayne, I'd love for you to explain why you posted the Blumenthal quote which you chose to post

Very simple Jim he is admitting he was never in Vietnam regardless of previous comments aka setting the record straight . not doubling down

And seem he was almost as bad as a draft dodger as Trump was (almost)

So there is no law. I figured as much
Who’s lying now. Or perhaps you miss spoke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wayne, I'd love for you to explain why you posted the Blumenthal quote which you chose to post

Very simple Jim he is admitting he was never in Vietnam regardless of previous comments aka setting the record straight . not doubling down

And seem he was almost as bad as a draft dodger as Trump was (almost)

So there is no law. I figured as much
Who’s lying now. Or perhaps you miss spoke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so, if he admits he was never in vietnam, only after getting caught about lying that he was in vietnam…then to you, he never lied in the first place?

that’s some serious logic there wayne.

and then you pivot to trump in order to change the subject…

liz warren lied about native american heritage on a job application to harvard, after that lie she was rewarded with a job paying, i believe, $400k a year. that’s not fraud?

and we all know you continue to vote for her.