Issa caught BS'ing on FOX

maineman said:
zap.... I have both USF and right on ignore... what does post 90 say?
Click to expand...


post # 90:

USFREEDOM911 said:
Anyone with at least two functioning brain cells was able to see your blatant attempts lie about your behavior, regarding your illegal activity of smuggling at least one weapon into Mexico, and also your falsehoods after that.
But I also know how the criteria for recognizing your lies, eliminates most of your supporters.
Click to expand...


As I stated...it's just more unfounded, third-party hearsay from a proven liar.
 
Right said:
How could you forget USF's epic triumph, exposing MM's lie, all those pictures of signs on the road to the border.

Let's make a bet Zippy, one month self ban. I say that USF proved beyond a reasonable doubt that MM lied. Damo will judge.
Click to expand...

How about that?
 
and it's interesting.... his question was silly... if my wife cheated on me, her misdeed would be cheating. If she lied about it, then her misdeed would be lying. Neither occurs, btw.
 
Right said:
Let's make a bet Zippy, one month self ban. I say that USF proved beyond a reasonable doubt that MM lied. Damo will judge.
Click to expand...

I could be called a "contextual lie":
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression.

It could be called a "half-truth".
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may employ some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

It could be called "lying by omission".
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

The bottom line, is that he lied; he continued to lie about his lying and therefore it becomes the idea of one rotten apple spoils the entire barrel.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I could be called a "contextual lie":
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression.

It could be called a "half-truth".
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may employ some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

It could be called "lying by omission".
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

The bottom line, is that he lied; he continued to lie about his lying and therefore it becomes the idea of one rotten apple spoils the entire barrel.
Click to expand...

But will Zippy man-up and take the bet?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I could be called a "contextual lie":
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression.

It could be called a "half-truth".
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may employ some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

It could be called "lying by omission".
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

The bottom line, is that he lied; he continued to lie about his lying and therefore it becomes the idea of one rotten apple spoils the entire barrel.
Click to expand...


And BEHOLD!

Above we find the ridiculous verbal gymnastics that WRONG would roll out to claim he was right, no matter what the facts reveal.

This is why NO ONE debates with either WRONG or USF...they both refuse to admit when they've been proven wrong.
 
Right said:
The bet doesn't require you or anyone else to trust me, since Damo would be the judge.
Click to expand...


Damo?

The same guy who refuses to hear my side regarding the CENSORSHIP that his Mods force on me?

The same guy who allows Grind to continue to enforce the bullshit, arbitrary rules that apply to no one but ME ALONE?

THAT Damo?

He's proven to be nearly as untrustworthy as you.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Damo?

The same guy who refuses to hear my side regarding the CENSORSHIP that his Mods force on me?

The same guy who allows Grind to continue to enforce the bullshit, arbitrary rules that apply to no one but ME ALONE?

THAT Damo?

He's proven to be nearly as untrustworthy as you.
Click to expand...
Zap.... clearly, USF and Glock want to S T R E T C H the definition of "lie" to fit their own agenda. USF seems to feel that I lied about bringing a gun into Mexico. I did not. I was quite clear and precise about exactly the actions that I took and the events that transpired.

LIE
an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.


I have never made a single knowingly untrue statement here.
 
maineman said:
Zap.... clearly, USF and Glock want to S T R E T C H the definition of "lie" to fit their own agenda. USF seems to feel that I lied about bringing a gun into Mexico. I did not. I was quite clear and precise about exactly the actions that I took and the events that transpired.

LIE
an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.


I have never made a single knowingly untrue statement here.
Click to expand...


I read what you wrote about crossing the border and you were very clear and precise.

You are correct, it's just USF and WRONG once again resorting to outlandish verbal gymnastics to prove their claim.
 
Right said:
Is there any mod that you do trust to be a judge, I mean with such an important outcome on the line?
Click to expand...

Let's see...

Is there a Mod I can trust...

Let's take a look at the candidates, shall we?

Grind?

NOPE...he's too busy enforcing his arbitrary rules to treat me fairly.

Billy?

See my sig line...

Damo?

The guy who blithely looks the other way while Billy and Grind enforce their arbitrary rules written for me alone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top