When will I.B. quit being a liar?

Citing what JW reported is a whole helluva lot more credible -- and factual -- than you denying JW reported in black and white, M T Brain Socket. You'd be the pathetic, lying cocksucker that's too fucking stupid to understand a written word, M T Brain Socket. And again, you miserable piece of shit, JW based its analysis on "citizens of age to vote" not "registered voters".

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Me citing the actual numbers on JW is a "helluva" lot more credible than your bullshit numbers.

So now you are twisting it to "JW based its analysis on "citizens of age to vote" not "registered voters". " Now how in the fuck does that make a lick of sense? So now you are saying its based on speculations? So let me see the math estimated there could be around 7 million registered voters and there was 5 million. And you say there was 3.25 million too many. That would mean there needed to be 10 million voters and there was half that many. What a fucking dotard you have become.

The math would be more like this "5*1.44+7.2" as in there were 7.2 million eligible voters and only 5 million registered. So 5 X 1.44 equals 7.2 or 7.2 million divided by 5 million equals 1.44. So you fucked with the numbers and put then in the formula wrong just like I showed in my riddle. You are either a con-artist or an idiot you choose.

Me citing the actual numbers on JW is a "helluva" lot more credible than your bullshit numbers.

So now you are twisting it to "JW based its analysis on "citizens of age to vote" not "registered voters". " Now how in the fuck does that make a lick of sense? So now you are saying its based on speculations? So let me see the math estimated there could be around 7 million registered voters and there was 5 million. And you say there was 3.25 million too many. That would mean there needed to be 10 million voters and there was half that many. What a fucking dotard you have become.

The math would be more like this "5*1.44+7.2" as in there were 7.2 million eligible voters and only 5 million registered. So 5 X 1.44 equals 7.2 or 7.2 million divided by 5 million equals 1.44. So you fucked with the numbers and put then in the formula wrong just like I showed in my riddle. You are either a con-artist or an idiot you choose. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

JW actually cited the number you stupidly claim isn't there, M T brain Socket.

JW actually cited the number you stupidly claim isn't there, M T brain Socket. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes they stated someone told them that number but they did not confirm it you idiot. Plus who knows if they were even talking about the same thing. Look at the relationship between the numbers. You know you are a liar and keep changing your story. Even the few that always support you have abandoned you on this one. You are a shameless liar.

Yes they stated someone told them that number but they did not confirm it you idiot. Plus who knows if they were even talking about the same thing. Look at the relationship between the numbers. You know you are a liar and keep changing your story. Even the few that always support you have abandoned you on this one. You are a shameless liar.
Originally Posted by MT Pockets

"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.

And a broken record.

No wonder he was the dipshit who set the bar.

PS — no voters are on the “roles” as IRritable Bowel Yanke so erroneously claims.

"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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Okay asshole then the number would be 1.53 million instead of your 3.5 and that would also mean only 34.7% of the population was eligible to vote. Here is the math.


5/1.44= 3.47
5-3.47= 1.53
3.47x 1.44= 5
10 x .347 = 3.47
Therefore 3.47 million eligible voters and 5 million registered voters, Means there were a 144% of eligible voters registered.

The numbers are rounded off. We all know math is your shortcoming.

Since you cannot argue with the 5 million registered voter number, lets see you explain how the 144% and 3.25 million correlate jackass.

Okay asshole then the number would be 1.53 million instead of your 3.5 and that would also mean only 34.7% of the population was eligible to vote. Here is the math.


5/1.44= 3.47
5-3.47= 1.53
3.47x 1.44= 5
10 x .347 = 3.47
Therefore 3.47 million eligible voters and 5 million registered voters, Means there were a 144% of eligible voters registered.

The numbers are rounded off. We all know math is your shortcoming.

Since you cannot argue with the 5 million registered voter number, lets see you explain how the 144% and 3.25 million correlate jackass. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

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.

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.

IBH ... just "look at" IT for what IT is .... someone disagrees with your perspective so rather than expend the energy to devise a rational, sensible, and intelligent response .... the "someone" attacks your character!

The internet and media is replete with mentally deficient "someones" who engage in that sort of "debate," and it only reveals the depth of their "deficiencies"!

Responding to them only gives them the minimal validity they seek. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are expressing your "perspective" as to what a "lie" is.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was a lie!

(Unless, of course, Bill "believed" oral sex is not "sexual relations"!)

The "loose tongued" media has attempted to redefine "lie"! You, too!

Just because someone has a differing opinion from you as to the conclusions to be drawn from information related to them by some source, even if you believe the source to not be reliable, doesn't meet the correct definition of a "lie"!

And by those statements I'm not suggesting IBH's conclusions or sources are "incorrect," I'm just pointing out that unless you can prove (or demonstrate) in this forum that HE KNEW what he said was untrue when he said it, then your accusation is spurious at best, groundless and frivolous actually. Originally Posted by LexusLover

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.

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". Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You swallow when Politifact spews, masterdickmuncher. You don't ask "who, what, when, where, titles, offices, credentials, or affiliation", masterdickmuncher, you just swallow. Crawl back into your bottle and continue to pickle yourself, masterdickmuncher.

In other words, I'm right and only a subject change by you.....is nothing but a subject change by you.
Good comeback.

You swallow when Politifact spews, masterdickmuncher. You don't ask "who, what, when, where, titles, offices, credentials, or affiliation", masterdickmuncher, you just swallow. Crawl back into your bottle and continue to pickle yourself, masterdickmuncher. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In other words, I'm right and only a subject change by you.....is nothing but a subject change by you.
Good comeback. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No, masterdickmuncher, you're never right. You're just talking out your drunken ass again, masterdickmuncher. Your supercilious pretensions of superiority continue to founder on the rocks of your own congenital hypocrisy, masterdickmuncher.

And if I ask for examples of your claim, examples you have never provided of your statement which comes not from a bottle, but from the undamaged brain of a foul-mouthed 3-year-old, you will come back with the fact they don't think your "lies" merit any consideration or fact-checking.
Whaaa

You swallow when Politifact spews, masterdickmuncher. You don't ask "who, what, when, where, titles, offices, credentials, or affiliation", masterdickmuncher, you just swallow. Crawl back into your bottle and continue to pickle yourself, masterdickmuncher. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Excellent!!!
Gotcha good on that one.

Is that a tear in the corner of your eye?

Who gives a shit?

No, masterdickmuncher, you're never right. You're just talking out your drunken ass again, masterdickmuncher. Your supercilious pretensions of superiority continue to founder on the rocks of your own congenital hypocrisy, masterdickmuncher.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And if I ask for examples of your claim, examples you have never provided of your statement which comes not from a bottle, but from the undamaged brain of a foul-mouthed 3-year-old, you will come back with the fact they don't think your "lies" merit any consideration or fact-checking.
Whaaa
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You'd be a real cunt complaining about someone else's use of foul language, masterdickmuncher. Just another example of your dick-sucking hypocrisy, masterdickmuncher.

Excellent!!!
Gotcha good on that one.

Is that a tear in the corner of your eye?

Who gives a shit?
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Quit projecting, masterdickmuncher. You haven't quit crying since last November, masterdickmuncher.

It's amazing the public library doesn't monitor their computer use closer when Munchie checks in. One would think those big blue letters would be easy to see from the desk across the room.