The Lying Game -- coming to a debate near you!

The problem with Monday's debate is there will be two pussies and no Johnson to plow in to them. Originally Posted by Prolongus

The problem is you're voting for a loser.

Your inability to see that video for what it is indicates your inability to grasp reality. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

FUCK YOU - I can grasp reality far better than you ever could.

Hey oinkboy... are you now reading the Krugtron's columns? Really? He's an economist and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have zero background or understanding in that field. Hence you have no basis to tell if/when he is lying.

As far as the upcoming Presidential debate is concerned, Krugman is clearly getting ready to cry foul if hildebeest does poorly. No different than Trump suggesting the political system is rigged in case he loses. That's pathetic in both cases. So Krugman is no better than Trump. Anyone who made fun of Trump's wild claims should heap scorn on Krugman as well.

If hildebeest can't shoot down Trump's lies without help from the moderator, then she's obviously not agile enough or qualified to be POTUS. And vice versa. But then I doubt if Trump will need the moderator to bail him out when hildebeest lies.

The problem is you're voting for a loser. Originally Posted by bambino

And you're voting for a piece of shit to be voting against the other piece of shit.
Hypocrite.

Turds of a feather.

Speaking of liars. Remember when Obama said he learned about Hillary's server from the news reports? Turns out he had numerous email conversations with her using a pseudonym. Both of them are bigger liars than Trump could ever hope to be.

Politifact's disingenuous rulings on two of hildebeest's lies: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It is quite well document on here that I despise Clinton, but that will never give you a free pass for being the most illogical megaposter.

So, in your alternate deviant reality, lack of data is NOT a valid reason to withold judgement? Do you suggest they should fabricate "facts" to fill in the unknowns? Actually you probably do support politically biased fiction as a tool--you certainly use it often enough yourself.

False propaganda, intentional misunderstanding, and ignoring inconvenient facts is your whole game.

It is quite well document on here that I despise Clinton, but that will never give you a free pass for being the most illogical megaposter.

So, in your alternate deviant reality, lack of data is NOT a valid reason to withold judgement? Do you suggest they should fabricate "facts" to fill in the unknowns? Actually you probably do support politically biased fiction as a tool--you certainly use it often enough yourself.

False propaganda, intentional misunderstanding, and ignoring inconvenient facts is your whole game. Originally Posted by Old-T

Is the investigation still going on, Old-THUMPER? Yet, "still under investigation" is being used by Politifact as an "excuse" for not making a ruling, you ignorant, bottle sucking clown.

And you're voting for a piece of shit to be voting against the other piece of shit.
Hypocrite. Originally Posted by Prolongus

I don't consider Trump a piece of shit, you do. He has a chance to win and supports most things I do. So I'm not a hypocrite. You're a fucking idiot voting for a candidate that has no chance. The more he shows up in the media he makes an ass out of himself. He's not a true Libertarian, neither is Weld. Did you see him sticking his tongue out? Aleppo? Clueless?

Alright class, time for another field trip to the “mind” of IBThePatheticPsycopathicLiar. We will dissect his mental irregularity by the numbers:

STEP 1: IB sets himself up for future mockery.

Politifact's disingenuous rulings on two of hildebeest's lies:

Politifact's disingenuous rulings on two of hildebeest's lies:

Quote:
"We decided not to put hildebeest’s claim on the Truth-O-Meter, because there are a lot of unknowns."
(Politifact)

Quote:
"We won’t be rating her statement on the Truth-O-Meter now, because investigations are ongoing."
(Politifact)
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What is important to note is that IBThePatheticPsycopathicLiar himself acknowledges that there are TWO DISTINCT examples of what he perceives to be biased equivocating.

STEP 2: I, the humble purveyor of logic and defender of truth and justice, take exception to ONE of the two instantiations of unfairness. One, not both, so I only address the one:

It is quite well document on here that I despise Clinton, but that will never give you a free pass for being the most illogical megaposter.

So, in your alternate deviant reality, lack of data is NOT a valid reason to withold judgement? Do you suggest they should fabricate "facts" to fill in the unknowns? Actually you probably do support politically biased fiction as a tool--you certainly use it often enough yourself.

False propaganda, intentional misunderstanding, and ignoring inconvenient facts is your whole game. Originally Posted by Old-T

STEP 3: IBThePatheticPsycopathicLiar is unable to respond to the point I made, so he ignores the reality and now fallaciously claims that I attacked his OTHER point, which, as any intelligent person can see (which leaves IB out of it) I didn’t address either way:

Is the investigation still going on, Old-THUMPER? Yet, "still under investigation" is being used by Politifact as an "excuse" for not making a ruling, you ignorant, bottle sucking clown. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There you have the essence of The IB Way. If you can’t handle reality, change the channel. NO ONE does that better than IB!

PS: It also demonstrates that he is numerically challenged, not being able to distinguish between ONE and TWO. Probably the result of a disadvantaged redneck schooling.

Alright class, time for another field trip to the “mind” of IBThePatheticPsycopathicLiar. We will dissect his mental irregularity by the numbers:

STEP 1: IB sets himself up for future mockery.

Your drunk-ass has no "class", Old-THUMPER. All you have is a bottle of cheap ass wine, Old-THUMPER.

What is important to note is that IBThePatheticPsycopathicLiar himself acknowledges that there are TWO DISTINCT examples of what he perceives to be biased equivocating.

STEP 2: I, the humble purveyor of logic and defender of truth and justice, take exception to ONE of the two instantiations of unfairness. One, not both, so I only address the one:

If you need additional examples, Old-THUMPER, you can find them. They are there, you sputtering-drunk jackass.

STEP 3: IBThePatheticPsycopathicLiar is unable to respond to the point I made, so he ignores the reality and now fallaciously claims that I attacked his OTHER point, which, as any intelligent person can see (which leaves IB out of it) I didn’t address either way:

Your so-called "point", Old-THUMPER, was non-substantive in the face of evidence that rendered your "point" meaningless.

There you have the essence of The IB Way. If you can’t handle reality, change the channel. NO ONE does that better than IB!

PS: It also demonstrates that he is numerically challenged, not being able to distinguish between ONE and TWO. Probably the result of a disadvantaged redneck schooling.

Change your shirt, Old-THUMPER, your drunk-ass has vomitted all over yourself.
Originally Posted by Old-T

.

Typical IB.

HE puts two points on the table, and when one is shown to be stupid, his "defense" is "YOU can find others!", and "It is irreverent that I was screwed up and wrong--I can't explain why, but since I am a homophobe and a liar I get a free pass!"

Yep, you never really change.

Typical IB.

HE puts two points on the table, and when one is shown to be stupid, his "defense" is "YOU can find others!", and "It is irreverent that I was screwed up and wrong--I can't explain why, but since I am a homophobe and a liar I get a free pass!"

Yep, you never really change. Originally Posted by Old-T

Your drunk-ass can't truthfully justify why Politifact refuses to make a ruling because of a non-existent "investigation", Old-THUMPER; so, you choose to stupidly deflect.

Your drunk-ass can't truthfully justify why Politifact refuses to make a ruling because of a non-existent "investigation", Old-THUMPER; so, you choose to stupidly deflect. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, you put two on the table, I only had an opinion on one. Sorry if it was the one that made you look like the liar and hatemonger that you are. You should have stopped to think BEFORE your first post. But as usual you didn't--so suck it up and live with it.

The fact that I did not express an opinion of your second point is not deflecting. Had I addressed a THIRD point that you DID NOT bring up, THAT would be deflecting. But you knw that already, you are the master at twisting and deflecting.


Or are you claiming your post DIDN'T talk to "lack of information"? Remember, it is too late for you to go back and edit out the incriminating piece!

No, you put two on the table, I only had an opinion on one. Sorry if it was the one that made you look like the liar and hatemonger that you are. You should have stopped to think BEFORE your first post. But as usual you didn't--so suck it up and live with it.

The fact that I did not express an opinion of your second point is not deflecting. Had I addressed a THIRD point that you DID NOT bring up, THAT would be deflecting. But you knw that already, you are the master at twisting and deflecting.

Or are you claiming your post DIDN'T talk to "lack of information"? Remember, it is too late for you to go back and edit out the incriminating piece! Originally Posted by Old-T

You had your lying ass handed to you by the fact that you cannot explain why the fuck Politifact is using a non-existent "investigation" as a reason for not making a ruling, Old-THUMPER.