When will I.B. quit being a liar?

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

144% of 7,462,212 (2010 census of voting age citizens) is 10,745,585 -- which is 3,283,373 more than 100% of the eligible number of voters, M T Brain Socket. Your shortcomings in math are only surpassed by your short comings in reading comprehension, M T Brain Socket.

Are you really that fucking stupid? there are only 5 million registered voters and 10 million citizens. The only way the 144% comes into play is by comparing the amount of registered voters vs the amount of eligible voters. There is nobody that says there were more than 5 million registered voters or more then 3.5 million that actually voted.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You've just described, in your well-known style of hypocritical bullshit, most interactions with corpy.
Corpy attacks character for merely disagreeing with his opinion, let alone for calling him out or posting information from our perspective.
Funny how you think WTF reasonably trying to point out something you chose to miss is worse than watching you go into detail about how to suck corpy's dick and watching you make excuses for his forum famous MO of changing subjects and embracing known falsehoods.



Now this part is pure you.
For the record, here is the definition of a lie, not a redefined version. Just another instance of you choosing not to see the truth.
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

The truth is, one of the definitions of a lie is an inaccurate or false statement or a falsehood. Intent has nothing to do with it.
Because as you have just proven, you would go to your grave claiming you didn't intentionally try to deceive or convey a false impression about what you said.
Plus using the word as you define it, only gets you one freebie.
Corpy (and you) repeat the lie time after time after it's been debunked or refuted. That removes your claim that the lie is unintentional.
Your outrage that the NYT or CNN was fake news because they didn't name their sources was epic. But now you salute the use of;

"Los Angeles County officials", you equivocating jackass. "Los Angeles County officials" is who told JW that there was "144%" more voters on the roles than there were citizens of age to vote, M T Brain Socket. It's in fucking black and white, M T Brain Socket, proving again you're too fucking stupid to breathe air without a how-to guide, M T Brain Socket.

by one of if not the biggest pricks on this site.
His eloquence is unmatched.

JW won't and can't provide the names and job titles of people who provided public information in the performance of their job duties. JW's blanket covering their identities isn't for their (those "officials") benefit.
The lynchpin of corpy's ever-shifting argument. The basis for him believing the "Fact" in his signature.

And now you look us in the eye and say that meets standards you have proclaimed before. You of the unending bombastic discourse.

I'll say you have yet to reach "rock bottom".



We have only the mystery "officials" declaring the 144% as fact.

And corpy thinking the same unsubstantiated fact in the same article showing up on various sites equals independent verification of the 144% figure.

What a douche-bag.

They think if its on the internet and they agree with it is the same a "double checking" the facts. LOL! The concept of logic is just not in their wheelhouse.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Are you really that fucking stupid? there are only 5 million registered voters and 10 million citizens. The only way the 144% comes into play is by comparing the amount of registered voters vs the amount of eligible voters. There is nobody that says there were more than 5 million registered voters or more then 3.5 million that actually voted.

You'd be the jackass retard that keeps ignoring that JW's report isn't based on "registered voters", M T Brain Socket. JW quite clearly states that it's analysis is based on the number of citizens of age to vote, M T Brain Socket. That you keep repeating an argument in the face of what was reported shows that you really, really retarded, M T Brain Socket.

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

They think if its on the internet and they agree with it is the same a "double checking" the facts. LOL! The concept of logic is just not in their wheelhouse.

You're too stupid to compute 144% of given number -- the given number being the number of citizens OF VOTING AGE; NOT registered voters, M T Brain Socket.

[Munchmasterman]

When something only comes from a single source with a know agenda, telling me they believe it enough to file papers in court doesn't prove anything except they'll say anything to slide.

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

They think if its on the internet and they agree with it is the same a "double checking" the facts. LOL! The concept of logic is just not in their wheelhouse.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

When something only comes from a single source with a know agenda, telling me they believe it enough to file papers in court doesn't prove anything except they'll say anything to slide.

Says the congenital hypocrite masterdickmuncher who continues to cite his favorite single source -- Politifact -- that is known to advance a a far-left lib-retard agenda.

[IIFFOFRDB]

unbelievable... except the fact it's 0zombies

[IIFFOFRDB]

Is there any hope for the 0zombies?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Whose the LOSER?

[Yssup Rider]

Anybody know why IFFYYYY is called SLOBBRIN? Because he’s the intellectually challenged wingman for the Buttman, aka IBIdiot, aka DOTY I, aka Twat of the Year.

And he’s back at his old tricks, trying to hijack a poignant search for the truth with misdirection.

Or Tourette’s!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[Munchmasterman]

Actually Politifact has nothing to do with this. And when did I cite them on this subject and if I did, how is it wrong? Your blanket generalizations about their facts has no basis in fact.

Stop trying to change the subject


The letter from jw shows up being quoted on many right-wing sites. There is no independent source verification for that number. Let's talk judicial watch. The figure (144%) is the number they supplied. They won't say how they arrived at it other than saying "Los Angeles County officials" gave them the information. They won't say what department, give the job positions, or give any names of these officials. They are a well known far right-wing site who doesn't provide details on how many of the conclusions are arrived at. Politifact shows all of the reasoning behind the grades they give.
You dismiss them because they don't fact check things you think they should. That still has nothing to do with whether they are correct or not.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Says the congenital hypocrite masterdickmuncher who continues to cite his favorite single source -- Politifact -- that is known to advance a a far-left lib-retard agenda.

When ever you have proof they are wrong, don't be shy about it.
Let us all see it.

[Yssup Rider]

Do you ever speak English Irritable Bowel Yankee?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Actually Politifact has nothing to do with this. And when did I cite them on this subject and if I did, how is it wrong? Your blanket generalizations about their facts has no basis in fact.

Stop trying to change the subject


The letter from jw shows up being quoted on many right-wing sites. There is no independent source verification for that number. Let's talk judicial watch. The figure (144%) is the number they supplied. They won't say how they arrived at it other than saying "Los Angeles County officials" gave them the information. They won't say what department, give the job positions, or give any names of these officials. They are a well known far right-wing site who doesn't provide details on how many of the conclusions are arrived at. Politifact shows all of the reasoning behind the grades they give.
You dismiss them because they don't fact check things you think they should. That still has nothing to do with whether they are correct or not.

When ever you have proof they are wrong, don't be shy about it.
Let us all see it.

The evidence that Politifact -- a subsidiary of the demonstrably lib-retard rag, the Tampa Bay Times -- is biased in favor of dim-retards has already been presented to your ignorant ass, masterdickmuncher. Politifact hyperventilates about out-of-context minutiae to nth degree to denigrate a conservative but bends over backwards to avoid accusing a dim-retard of lying -- going so far as to not discuss a dim-retard's comments -- e.g., hildebeest -- that are obvious lies, masterdickmuncher. So take your congenital stupidity and douche your drunken, stupid-ass with your cheap-ass wine, masterdickmuncher

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

When ever you have proof they are wrong, don't be shy about it.
Let us all see it.

Here's proof that your lib-retard source hyperventilates about bullshit minutia to 'elevate' lib-retard morale by perpetuating ignorance, masterdickmuncher, even as it willfully ignores lies told by lib-retards.

"Duffel Blog" is a satirical website whose sole specialty is to relate military related absurdities, but your lib-retard handlers at Politifact felt they "needed" to address -- AKA "hyperventilate about" -- Duffel Blog's satire as if Duffel Blog was "serious", masterdickmuncher.

[Munchmasterman]

You're full of shit. You have said the same thing, time and time again. Until you can show documentation or other sources that back up your bullshit, that's what your word is.
Bullshit.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The evidence that Politifact -- a subsidiary of the demonstrably lib-retard rag, the Tampa Bay Times -- is biased in favor of dim-retards has already been presented to your ignorant ass, masterdickmuncher. Politifact hyperventilates about out-of-context minutiae to nth degree to denigrate a conservative but bends over backwards to avoid accusing a dim-retard of lying -- going so far as to not discuss a dim-retard's comments -- e.g., hildebeest -- that are obvious lies, masterdickmuncher. So take your congenital stupidity and douche your drunken, stupid-ass with your cheap-ass wine, masterdickmuncher

Nice try you fucking pussy. JW's 144% is not verifiable anywhere else but in their letter. It's not a proven fact.

Once again you are desperate to change the subject. You don't do well under the lights.
Your word doesn't mean shit. I know you don't believe me. That's why I include links. You call everyone you don't agree with a liar. But you seldom prove anyone is a liar.

The more you squirm the better. Your last response screams hubris and cries out for help.
But no one is coming to help you. You've changed the subject and played stupid to points central to other's posts.
So what's your next move now?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You're full of shit. You have said the same thing, time and time again. Until you can show documentation or other sources that back up your bullshit, that's what your word is.
Bullshit.
Nice try you fucking pussy. JW's 144% is not verifiable anywhere else but in their letter. It's not a proven fact.

Once again you are desperate to change the subject. You don't do well under the lights.
Your word doesn't mean shit. I know you don't believe me. That's why I include links. You call everyone you don't agree with a liar. But you seldom prove anyone is a liar.

The more you squirm the better. Your last response screams hubris and cries out for help.
But no one is coming to help you. You've changed the subject and played stupid to points central to other's posts.
So what's your next move now?

JW's legal department trumps your dick-sucking opinion every fucking day pf the week, masterdickmuncher.