House members rejected bailout because voters back home hated it

[Silver]

I did not admit to being deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight jim and don't misquote your members.

:lol::lol::lol:Thats is so funny...

Simple logic ...

If you are deceptive for the purpose of deceiving another ... you are by definition a liar....

[red states rule]

:lol::lol::lol:Thats is so funny...

Simple logic ...

If you are deceptive for the purpose of deceiving another ... you are by definition a liar....

Logic is lost in that vacuum he calls a brain

[retiredman]

My mistake?

Sorry, but I tried many times to stay above the fray with you. You ultimately get pissy with me, I return in kind (but only better), and then you try cooling things off by shooting me a PM. Things return to normal and then you ultimately repeat the same thing again.

EVERYONE on this board will agree that you get nasty with EVERYONE and ANYONE who dares disagree with you, but then get all uptight when they shove it back down your throat.

I also know for a fact that you took this similar route with a few others. Did you ever think just maybe it's YOUR attitude and the way that you "speak" to people that results in these issues?

I admit that I have given as harshly as I have taken...maybe moreso.

YOu misread my comments about my concerns for your family. They were always genuine and continue to be so.

[retiredman]

:lol::lol::lol:Thats is so funny...

Simple logic ...

If you are deceptive for the purpose of deceiving another ... you are by definition a liar....


My purpose was to influence the congressman, not to deceive him. Like I said...all the congressman ever knows is that each phone call represents a moment in time when a concerned constituent called to express his or her opinion. period. Each time I called, that is what I was and that is what I was doing.

[Yurt]

learn how to use the quote function, thanks.





according to you that is a fact...in the beginning of this thread i laughed at you for trusting the polls over the phone calls....you said no, i can not trust the phone calls, no more, no less than the polls because the phone bank people are deceptive....don't ya think...you added. that is a fact according to you. the "right" has NOTHING to do with trusting the phone calls, but i am not surprised you continue to twist the trust issue preacher.

I stand by my statement. YOu have no right to expect that the number of phone calls equates to the number of individual constituents who called.

again with this "right" bullshit....i don't care about the right mfm, i care about the fact that trusted those phone calls over polls, you informed me that phone calls cannot be trusted over polls because people deceive their reps by calling multiple times. that is a fact.

it matters not whether i have some right to "expect" the number of phone calls equals this...........the FACT of the matter is about honesty preacher. but i am not surprised you avoid that issue and are not falling on your "right" to argue lies. as if, the right, which is irrelevent to the discussion, outweighs TRUTH. obviously for you, a right is more important than the truth. no surprise.



see above and don't forget your words, you said the reps are not lying because i questioned you and said, why can't i trust the phone calls....are you saying the reps are not lying, your words:

the reps are NOT lying, but the people who call them are being deceptive, don't you think....admit that you knew that the deception was dishonest, else why would you say the reps aren't lying, it is the people deceiving the reps who cause the phone calls not to be trust.
will you fucking QUIT demanding that I "admit" to silly things that YOU believe and I don't? I have told you time and time again, I do not believe that deception in this case equates to dishonesty

then i guess our government is nothing more than a football game to you....you deceptive preacher....you knew and that aided your intent, to decieve, your rep when you called over and over KNOWING they believed you to be different voters....fact


liar....you said i could not trust the phone calls because of phone banks and people like you who screw the system....

Again...quit calling me a liar. I mean it.

when you stop lying, i will, i mean it.


I said you could not trust the number of phone calls to be an accurate representation of anything other than how many phonecalls the reps had recieved.

no, you said the phone bank callers are deceptive....i.e., liars, because i told you...........look at all the people calling in and voicing their concern that this bill should NOT pass.............you said, no, they were phone banks and not truly representative of the "number" of voters............i asked for proof, you of course admitted your dishonesty..........


Y
OU wanted to suggest that the number of phone calls for the bill versus the number of phone calls against the bill was somehow indicative of the percentage of the population who felt that way... and I suggested, and still suggest, that polls, with their controls, are much more valid measures


because of people like you fucking out political system. if no one participated in phone banking, we could trust the phone calls more. FACT. but, dishonest unpatriotic citizens like you, have ruined that method of getting our reps "ear." pathetic.




What no answer to this preacher? are you recanting this line of thought?

still no answer.........no surprise



of course, you admit that i am right, that your practice is designed to influece the vote, it is the same as voting more than once, you are know full well that calling multiple times makes the rep think that multiple people feel this way, instead of thinking oh, it is mfm callilng for the thousandth time....you know for a fact that if they knew it was you calling over and over, your phone call would have less influence....

[B]again...everytime a constituent calls his or her elected representative, they are attempting to "influence" their votes...that is how a representative democracy works. Constituents call their representatives, they write them letters, they stop them on the streets when they see them and speak their minds, they attend town hall meetings with the representatives, and they have the right to do any and all of those things as often as they care to. period.

see enlarged font


honestly, my facts still stand, your weak attempt to excuse your dishonest
behavior and unpatriotic behavior is sad. you are fucking with our democracy by participating in these phone banks...and according to you becuase of these phone banks..........these deceptive people......can't trust the phone calls..............DON'T YOU THINK

your facts are flawed and I showed you how. If you care not to listen, that is certainly none of my problem. I am participating in our democracy by calling my elected representatives. If you don't care to participate, or if you only care to participate to the extent of calling every once in a while, that is your decision and it ain't my problem. What the representative knows with his phone call numbers is only this: he knows that he received X number of phone calls FOR a certain measure and Y number of phone calls AGAINST that measure. He knows that every one of those phone calls represents a moment in time when a constituent cared enough about that particular issue to pick up the phone and call him. Period. It is only ignorant morons like YOU who seem to feel that citizens should be convicted for exercising their rights to free speech by callling their representatives more than once...it is only fools like you who erroneously thought that numbers of calls for versus calls against was any sort of scientific measure of the balance of opinion in the population. It never has been and it never has been intended to be and it never has been viewed as such by any elected politician - unless they were as numb as you are.

you are full of shit preacher, sad, i can only imagine you telling your flock to call over and over to your reps in maine.........hey, it is is deceptive, but not dishonest, come on guys..........you two and myself will call over and over and they will think that THREE THOUSAND voters are calling in.....not dishonest, nope..........

[jimnyc]

I admit that I have given as harshly as I have taken...maybe moreso.

YOu misread my comments about my concerns for your family. They were always genuine and continue to be so.

And if you and I were in the midst of a debate and I stated "How is your wife and daughter doing? I sure do hope they live long and fruitful lives!" - that would seem appropriate to you in the middle of a debate thread?

BTW - don't read anything into my comments, I'm being genuine.

[Yurt]

My purpose was to influence the congressman, not to deceive him. Like I said...all the congressman ever knows is that each phone call represents a moment in time when a concerned constituent called to express his or her opinion. period. Each time I called, that is what I was and that is what I was doing.

liar:


:lol: a facking poll is more accurate that congress getting phone calls....are you callling the congress folks liars mfm?


no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.


do you have any proof of this? of course not. you're making this up as if the poll could not have been faked or the numbers scewed....get over yourself and your party loyalty....face it, many dems voted no because they heard directly from their constituents, that is what they said. anyone that puts more faith in a random poll over direct phone calls and who knows what else, emails, etc...is a fool

kerry should president if polls are right LOOOOL


do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.

why did you make those phone calls? why did you tell me that i can't trust those phone calls? are those phone calls honestly representing to our reps that different people are calling?

yes or no

and funny how you say it is disonest to call a rep in another area and pass yourself off as his or her constituent, YET, you have no problem purposefully calling the "other side" as you say and making them believe that you are from their side of the aisle.

you are an admitted liar.

[retiredman]

why did you make those phone calls? why did you tell me that i can't trust those phone calls? are those phone calls honestly representing to our reps that different people are calling?

yes or no

no. the caller simply and honestly identifies himself as a constituent and states his opinion. I NEVER tried to represent to the congressman's office that I was "different people"

and funny how you say it is disonest to call a rep in another area and pass yourself off as his or her constituent, YET, you have no problem purposefully calling the "other side" as you say and making them believe that you are from their side of the aisle.
again...you are confused. I never tried to make anyone believe anything. I never identified myself as a "republican constituent", only as a constituent, which was exactly correct and honest.

AND...

I say again.... please quit calling me a liar. I really do not enjoy it and, if you are going to make that paticular insult a regular hallmark of each and every post to me when you KNOW that I find it distasteful, I will simply refrain from communicating with you. OK?

[jimnyc]

I say again.... please quit calling me a liar.

Might of helped if you didn't admit to being dishonest/deceitful which is LYING by the very definition.

[retiredman]

Might of helped if you didn't admit to being dishonest/deceitful which is LYING by the very definition.

I never admitted to being dishonest OR deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight.

[jimnyc]

I never admitted to being dishonest OR deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight.

They are straight, being deceptive is within the definition of lying. You lied by omission, which makes you a liar.

Sorry you're so angry about this. I'm not, because I haven't lied.

[Immanuel]

I never admitted to being dishonest OR deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight.

The following are all found on www.dictionary.com:


deception
Sponsored Links Deception
Detailed Skin Care information. Product ingredients, pros & cons.
www.beautifulreview.com
6 dictionary results for: deception
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
de·cep·tion /dɪˈsɛpʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-sep-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived.
2. something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME decepcioun < OF < LL déceptiōn- (s. of déceptiō), equiv. to L décept(us) (ptp. of décipere; see deceive) + -iōn- -ion]

—Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Sponsored Links Deception
Detailed Skin Care information. Product ingredients, pros & cons.
www.beautifulreview.com
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
de·cep·tion (dĭ-sěp'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.



[Middle English decepcioun, from Old French deception, from Late Latin dēceptiō, dēceptiōn-, from Latin dēceptus, past participle of dēcipere, to deceive; see deceive.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
deception
c.1412, from pp. stem of L. decipere (see deceive).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
deception

noun
1. a misleading falsehood [syn: misrepresentation]
2. the act of deceiving
3. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers [syn: magic trick]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: de·cep·tion
Pronunciation: di-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act of deceiving
2 : something that deceives : DECEIT

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

Deception
De*cep"tion\, n. [F. d['e]ception, L. deceptio, fr. decipere, deceptum. See Deceive.]

1. The act of deceiving or misleading. --South.

2. The state of being deceived or misled.

There is one thing relating either to the action or enjoyments of man in which he is not liable to deception. --South.

3. That which deceives or is intended to deceive; false representation; artifice; cheat; fraud.

There was of course room for vast deception. --Motley.

Syn: Deception, Deceit, Fraud, Imposition.

Usage: Deception usually refers to the act, and deceit to the habit of the mind; hence we speak of a person as skilled in deception and addicted to deceit. The practice of deceit springs altogether from design, and that of the worst kind; but a deception does not always imply aim and intention. It may be undesigned or accidental. An imposition is an act of deception practiced upon some one to his annoyance or injury; a fraud implies the use of stratagem, with a view to some unlawful gain or advantage.




deceive
Sponsored Links Deception
Detailed Skin Care information. Product ingredients, pros & cons.
www.beautifulreview.com
6 dictionary results for: deceive
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
de·ceive /dɪˈsiv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-seev] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -ceived, -ceiv·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude: They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.
2. to be unfaithful to (one's spouse or lover).
3. Archaic. to while away (time).
–verb (used without object)
4. to mislead or falsely persuade others; practice deceit: an engaging manner that easily deceives.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME deceiven < OF deceivre < L décipere, lit., to ensnare, equiv. to dé- de- + -cipere, comb. form of capere to take]

—Related forms
de·ceiv·a·ble·ness, de·ceiv·a·bil·i·ty, noun
de·ceiv·a·bly, adverb
de·ceiv·er, noun
de·ceiv·ing·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. cozen, dupe, fool, gull, hoodwink, trick, defraud, outwit, entrap, ensnare, betray. See cheat.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Sponsored Links Deception
Detailed Skin Care information. Product ingredients, pros & cons.
www.beautifulreview.com
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
de·ceive (dĭ-sēv') Pronunciation Key
v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives

v. tr.

1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
2. Archaic To catch by guile; ensnare.


v. intr.

1. To practice deceit.
2. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.



[Middle English deceiven, from Old French deceveir, from Vulgar Latin *dēcipēre, from Latin dēcipere, to ensnare, deceive : dē-, de- + capere, to seize; see kap- in Indo-European roots.]

de·ceiv'a·ble adj., de·ceiv'er n., de·ceiv'ing·ly adv.

Synonyms: These verbs mean to lead another into error, danger, or a disadvantageous position by underhand means. Deceive involves the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth: "We are inclined to believe those whom we do not know, because they have never deceived us" (Samuel Johnson).
Betray implies treachery: "When you betray somebody else, you also betray yourself" (Isaac Bashevis Singer).
Mislead means to lead in the wrong direction or into error of thought or action: "My manhood, long misled by wandering fires,/Followed false lights" (John Dryden).
Beguile suggests deceiving by means of charm or allure: They beguiled unwary investors with tales of overnight fortunes.
To delude is to mislead the mind or judgment. The government deluded the public about the dangers of low-level radiation.
Dupe implies playing upon another's susceptibilities or naiveté: The shoppers were duped by false advertising.
Hoodwink refers to deluding by trickery: It is difficult to hoodwink a smart lawyer.
Bamboozle means to delude by the use of such tactics as hoaxing or artful persuasion: "Perhaps if I wanted to be understood or to understand I would bamboozle myself into belief, but I am a reporter" (Graham Greene).
Double-cross implies the betrayal of a confidence or the willful breaking of a pledge: The thief double-crossed his accomplice.



deceit
Sponsored Links Deception
Detailed Skin Care information. Product ingredients, pros & cons.
www.beautifulreview.com
6 dictionary results for: deceit
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
de·ceit /dɪˈsit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-seet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once she exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again.
2. an act or device intended to deceive; trick; stratagem.
3. the quality of being deceitful; duplicity; falseness: a man full of deceit.
[Origin: 1225–75; ME deceite < AF, OF, n. use of fem. of deceit, ptp. of deceivre to deceive]

—Synonyms 1. deception, dissimulation. 1, 3. Deceit, guile, hypocrisy, duplicity, fraud, trickery refer either to practices designed to mislead or to the qualities that produce those practices. Deceit is the quality that prompts intentional concealment or perversion of truth for the purpose of misleading: honest and without deceit. The quality of guile leads to craftiness in the use of deceit: using guile and trickery to attain one's ends. Hypocrisy is the pretense of possessing qualities of sincerity, goodness, devotion, etc.: It was sheer hypocrisy for him to go to church. Duplicity is the form of deceitfulness that leads one to give two impressions, either or both of which may be false: the duplicity of a spy working for two governments. Fraud refers usually to the practice of subtle deceit or duplicity by which one may derive benefit at another's expense: an advertiser convicted of fraud. Trickery is the quality that leads to the use of tricks and habitual deception: notorious for his trickery in business deals.
—Antonyms 3. honesty, sincerity.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Sponsored Links Deception
Detailed Skin Care information. Product ingredients, pros & cons.
www.beautifulreview.com
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
de·ceit (dĭ-sēt') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The act or practice of deceiving; deception.
2. A stratagem; a trick.
3. The quality of being deceitful; falseness.



[Middle English deceite, from Old French, from past participle of deceveir, to deceive; see deceive.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
deceit
c.1300, from O.Fr. deceite, fem. pp. of deceveir (see deceive).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
deceit

noun
1. the quality of being fraudulent [syn: fraudulence]
2. a misleading falsehood [syn: misrepresentation]
3. the act of deceiving [syn: deception]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: de·ceit
Function: noun
: deliberate and misleading concealment, false declaration, or artifice : DECEPTION deceit>; also : the tort of committing or carrying out deceit deceit> —see also FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

Deceit
De*ceit"\, n. [OF. deceit, des[,c]ait, decept (cf. deceite, de[,c]oite), fr. L. deceptus deception, fr. decipere. See Deceive.]

1. An attempt or disposition to deceive or lead into error; any declaration, artifice, or practice, which misleads another, or causes him to believe what is false; a contrivance to entrap; deception; a wily device; fraud.

Making the ephah small and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit. --Amos viii. 5.

Friendly to man, far from deceit or guile. --Milton.

Yet still we hug the dear deceit. --N. Cotton.

2. (Law) Any trick, collusion, contrivance, false representation, or underhand practice, used to defraud another. When injury is thereby effected, an action of deceit, as it called, lies for compensation.

Syn: Deception; fraud; imposition; duplicity; trickery; guile; falsifying; double-dealing; stratagem. See Deception.

Note: Bolding added by me.

You are deceiving yourself, MFM, if you believe the use of deception is not a lie, dishonesty or falseness. My Bible teaches that all lies come from the devil.

I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me by your parsing of words that there is a difference between deception and downright lies.

Immie

[retiredman]

You are deceiving yourself, MFM, if you believe the use of deception is not a lie, dishonesty or falseness. My Bible teaches that all lies come from the devil.

I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me by your parsing of words that there is a difference between deception and downright lies.

Immie

answer me a question: is the artistic technique known as Trompe L'Oeil LYING? a simple yes or no is all that I ask.

[red states rule]

I never admitted to being dishonest OR deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight.

You are a liar, and everyone here knows it. Give it up, move on, or take a hike to another board

[Yurt]

why should anyone answer any of your hypos...you refuse to answer others and call unfit

you said the reps are NOT lying that they believed multiple people called.....if they are not lying, then they do not know that they are being deceived....the result of this deception is a LIE. why? because it is not true that multiple people are calling as it is people like you utilizing phone banks to deceive the reps into believing multiple people called.

now, is the end result the truth or a lie. is it true that every phone call was unique? the reps are NOT lying when they said they believed different people called.

[Kathianne]

why should anyone answer any of your hypos...you refuse to answer others and call unfit

you said the reps are NOT lying that they believed multiple people called.....if they are not lying, then they do not know that they are being deceived....the result of this deception is a LIE. why? because it is not true that multiple people are calling as it is people like you utilizing phone banks to deceive the reps into believing multiple people called.

now, is the end result the truth or a lie. is it true that every phone call was unique? the reps are NOT lying when they said they believed different people called.
Exactly. As I posted earlier, if it's not a lie, then neither is the deception of manufacturers that lower the total weight of food products, while keeping the packaging the same size. The most likely to be had by such are the less educated and poor. For some reason I think that MFM is agreeing with those that commit such bad behavior or else he's being disingenuous.

[Yurt]

Exactly. As I posted earlier, if it's not a lie, then neither is the deception of manufacturers that lower the total weight of food products, while keeping the packaging the same size. The most likely to be had by such are the less educated and poor. For some reason I think that MFM is agreeing with those that commit such bad behavior or else he's being disingenuous.

i saw someone call it a "phony seed bed." in that, the rep truly believes, say.... 1000 of his constituents believe this way and would vote that way, when in reality the truth is, only one person called 1000 times.

there is nothing honest about the intent or result of the matter.

[jimnyc]

answer me a question: is the artistic technique known as Trompe L'Oeil LYING? a simple yes or no is all that I ask.

I love how you use analogies and yet toss every other one out the window when proposed to you.

You're a liar and a fraud and the entire board has seen it this time.

[retiredman]

i saw someone call it a "phony seed bed." in that, the rep truly believes, say.... 1000 of his constituents believe this way and would vote that way, when in reality the truth is, only one person called 1000 times.

there is nothing honest about the intent or result of the matter.and as I have said over and over and over and over and over and over again...the elected official - nor anyone else - has any right, nor do they EVER equate the number of telephone calls received with an equal number of constituents. Every phone call is nothing but a moment in time when a constituent takes the time to pick up the phone and call the elected representative. NO ONE, except naive fools like you, would EVER equate call volume to an equal number of constituents one way or another. As a constituent in a representative democracy, I am free to communicate with my elected representatives as often as I want to and in as many different ways as I want to to express my opinions. Exercising my rights in a democracy is not a lie and it is only dishonest if I were to say I was FOR something that I actually was against.

[retiredman]

I love how you use analogies and yet toss every other one out the window when proposed to you.

You're a liar and a fraud and the entire board has seen it this time.

I showed the foolishness of your analogy. I notice how you neglect to answer mine even though I answered yours, however. nice touch jimbo. ;)

[jimnyc]

I showed the foolishness of your analogy. I notice how you neglect to answer mine even though I answered yours, however. nice touch jimbo. ;)

The only fool here is the *preacher who is lying page after page to conceal the fact that he lied.

[Yurt]

and as I have said over and over and over and over and over and over again...the elected official - nor anyone else - has any right, nor do they EVER equate the number of telephone calls received with an equal number of constituents. Every phone call is nothing but a moment in time when a constituent takes the time to pick up the phone and call the elected representative. NO ONE, except naive fools like you, would EVER equate call volume to an equal number of constituents one way or another. As a constituent in a representative democracy, I am free to communicate with my elected representatives as often as I want to and in as many different ways as I want to to express my opinions. Exercising my rights in a democracy is not a lie and it is only dishonest if I were to say I was FOR something that I actually was against.

wait, you said the reps are NOT lying that they believe all those phone calls are different people......not surprisingly you skipped this post....


why should anyone answer any of your hypos...you refuse to answer others and call unfit

you said the reps are NOT lying that they believed multiple people called.....if they are not lying, then they do not know that they are being deceived....the result of this deception is a LIE. why? because it is not true that multiple people are calling as it is people like you utilizing phone banks to deceive the reps into believing multiple people called.

now, is the end result the truth or a lie. is it true that every phone call was unique? the reps are NOT lying when they said they believed different people called.

so the reps are naive mfm? you said they were NOT lying, that they truly believed the phone calls were from different people......get your stories straight

[Yurt]

I showed the foolishness of your analogy. I notice how you neglect to answer mine even though I answered yours, however. nice touch jimbo. ;)

bull, you will not answer the voting analogy because that is "illegal" and somehow because it is illegal that makes it dishonest......to which of course you never, ever answered that the people who participated in the underground railroad were dishonest........

the voting analogy is great and so is kathianne's analogy about the food packaging

[retiredman]

bull, you will not answer the voting analogy because that is "illegal" and somehow because it is illegal that makes it dishonest......to which of course you never, ever answered that the people who participated in the underground railroad were dishonest........

the voting analogy is great and so is kathianne's analogy about the food packaging
they are great analogies from your perspective because you feel they make YOUR case. I understand your bias. You, of course refuse to acknowledge any of my arguments, and that is to be expected.

[retiredman]

The only fool here is the *preacher who is lying page after page to conceal the fact that he lied.

dial it back jimbo...I am not lying. and I did not lie. However, you really need to know that, at this point in the afternoon, I really could give a flying FUCK if you believe me or not. OK?

[retiredman]

wait, you said the reps are NOT lying that they believe all those phone calls are different people......not surprisingly you skipped this post....



so the reps are naive mfm? you said they were NOT lying, that they truly believed the phone calls were from different people......get your stories straight

where did I ever say that I thought the the reps thought that all the calls were from different people? where has any rep ever said that all the calls were from different people?

[Kathianne]

they are great analogies from your perspective because you feel they make YOUR case. I understand your bias. You, of course refuse to acknowledge any of my arguments, and that is to be expected.

If it's a 'fact' that deception, dishonesty, etc., are not lies', then so must be my analogy. You disagree?

[jimnyc]

dial it back jimbo...I am not lying. and I did not lie. However, you really need to know that, at this point in the afternoon, I really could give a flying FUCK if you believe me or not. OK?

Whatever you say, *preacher!

How is the wife and daughter? I hope they live long and fruitful lives!

[retiredman]

If it's a 'fact' that deception, dishonesty, etc., are not lies', then so must be my analogy. You disagree?

sometimes deception is a lie, sometimes it is not. Do you disagree?

If you do, please answer me whether or not Trompe L'Oeil is a LIE.

[Kathianne]

sometimes deception is a lie, sometimes it is not. Do you disagree?

If you do, please answer me whether or not Trompe L'Oeil is a LIE.

Sorry, you didn't answer mine, so I'm not yours.

I'll assume you meant you lied, but the food manufactures were just doing the poor a favor, but not raising prices, while cutting the amount of food.

[retiredman]

Sorry, you didn't answer mine, so I'm not yours.

I'll assume you meant you lied, but the food manufactures were just doing the poor a favor, but not raising prices, while cutting the amount of food.


faulty assumption.

and I did answer your question. Sometimes deception is NOT a lie. would you or would you not agree?

[Yurt]

where did I ever say that I thought the the reps thought that all the calls were from different people? where has any rep ever said that all the calls were from different people?


:lol: a facking poll is more accurate that congress getting phone calls....are you callling the congress folks liars mfm?


no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.

the entire point of that exchange was the i believed that polls were faulty as compared to congress actually hearing from their constituents, different constituents......i said are you saying the congress folks are lying....you said of course they are not lying............BUT, the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive DON'T YOU THINK.

congress truly believed they were getting multiple phone calls, that is why i said the phone calls were more trustworthy than your polls, you then clarified that it was not the politicians lying about the accuracy of the phone calls, rather it was the political operatives CAUSING the phone calls to be UNTRUSTWORHTY as they are not TRULY representative of the constituents as there are scam artists like yourself calling over and over knowing full well that you are intending to deceive the reps into believing differnt constituents feel or want a vote this way.

since congress people did not lie, will you now concede your dishonesty?

[Yurt]

mfm:

is your intent to cause the representatives to believe that more than one constituent is voicing their opinion when you placed your multiple phone calls?

yes or no

if you say no, you had better explain yourself very well as those people are being deceptive, DON'T YOU THINK

[Kathianne]

faulty assumption.

and I did answer your question. Sometimes deception is NOT a lie. would you or would you not agree?

How could that be, and no, you did not answer my question.

[Yurt]

How could that be, and no, you did not answer my question.

his question regarding whether deception is always a lie is a red herring....pointing to instances where deception is not an outright lie does nothing to absolve his dishonesty in the matter at hand.

the deception he spoke of.....is phone banks calling multiple times with the sole purpose of making the representative believe that many different voters are calling......he flat out said that is deception.

in this case, it is clear that the deception is dishonest and its stated purpose is to influence the voting process in this country. it is getting boring even discussing it with him, he dances all over the floor like a drunken hobo who thinks he is john travolta in saturday night fever.

[Kathianne]

his question regarding whether deception is always a lie is a red herring....pointing to instances where deception is not an outright lie does nothing to absolve his dishonesty in the matter at hand.

the deception he spoke of.....is phone banks calling multiple times with the sole purpose of making the representative believe that many different voters are calling......he flat out said that is deception.

in this case, it is clear that the deception is dishonest and its stated purpose is to influence the voting process in this country. it is getting boring even discussing it with him, he dances all over the floor like a drunken hobo who thinks he is john travolta in saturday night fever.I'm aware of the multiple call scenario, goes without saying.

On the other hand, based on his position that it's 'fine', while earlier agreed 'deceptive', he's yet to answer whether or not he agrees with my analogy, regarding deceptive packaging.

[Yurt]

I'm aware of the multiple call scenario, goes without saying.

On the other hand, based on his position that it's 'fine', while earlier agreed 'deceptive', he's yet to answer whether or not he agrees with my analogy, regarding deceptive packaging.

i did not mean you were not aware, simply further discussing the matter and putting out probably my last thoughts on the matter as there is no way he will be honest and admit to his dishonesty and unpatriotic denigration and violation of our form of government.

[Abbey Marie]

You guys are wasting your time. Dishonest people are certainly not going to be honest when confronted with their dishonesty. They just ratchet it up.

[Kathianne]

i did not mean you were not aware, simply further discussing the matter and putting out probably my last thoughts on the matter as there is no way he will be honest and admit to his dishonesty and unpatriotic denigration and violation of our form of government.

Seems bottom line, we agree. MFM is a liar. He won't admit it or worse yet, doesn't recognize it.

[retiredman]

the entire point of that exchange was the i believed that polls were faulty as compared to congress actually hearing from their constituents, different constituents......i said are you saying the congress folks are lying....you said of course they are not lying............BUT, the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive DON'T YOU THINK.

congress truly believed they were getting multiple phone calls, that is why i said the phone calls were more trustworthy than your polls, you then clarified that it was not the politicians lying about the accuracy of the phone calls, rather it was the political operatives CAUSING the phone calls to be UNTRUSTWORHTY as they are not TRULY representative of the constituents as there are scam artists like yourself calling over and over knowing full well that you are intending to deceive the reps into believing differnt constituents feel or want a vote this way.

since congress people did not lie, will you now concede your dishonesty?


give me a link to where you can proove that congress truly believed that they were NOT getting multiple phone calls. As I said over and over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...I NEVER intended to deceive anyone about anything.... I intended to call and have that call be a moment in time when a constituent of the congressman heard the concerns of a constituent...and then I called again, and it was another moment in time, and I, as a constituent, let me representative know what I felt once again... and again and again. My RIGHT. Not DISHONEST in any way. Not ILLEGAL in any way. Now will you shut the fuck up and lets talk about the real issues that face our two campaigns, or will you continue to run away from the fact that you boy is getting his ass waxed in the polls and concentrate, instead, upon this silly shit? Your call, counselor.

I'll wait

[jimnyc]

I'll wait

While we're waiting, Mr. Liar, how are your wife and daughter doing? I sure hope they live long and fruitful lives!

[retiredman]

While we're waiting, Mr. Liar, how are your wife and daughter doing? I sure hope they live long and fruitful lives!

My wife is doing awesome! she just got a giant merit increase at her job, and my daughter made the dean's list last spring. I am quite sure they will both outlive me by a long shot.

Nowq why don't you knock this adversarial bullshit out and quit calling me a fucking liar? how 'bout it jimbo? Do you HAVE anything of substance or is your entire argument based on baited attacks? hmmmmm?

[Abbey Marie]

give me a link to where you can proove that congress truly believed that they were NOT getting multiple phone calls. As I said over and over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...I NEVER intended to deceive anyone about anything.... I intended to call and have that call be a moment in time when a constituent of the congressman heard the concerns of a constituent...and then I called again, and it was another moment in time, and I, as a constituent, let me representative know what I felt once again... and again and again. My RIGHT. Not DISHONEST in any way. Not ILLEGAL in any way. Now will you shut the fuck up and lets talk about the real issues that face our two campaigns, or will you continue to run away from the fact that you boy is getting his ass waxed in the polls and concentrate, instead, upon this silly shit? Your call, counselor.

I'll wait


"It was a moment in time" "Lalalalala"

This may in fact be the biggest load of tripe I have ever had the misfortune to read.


http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/bso0038l.jpg

[jimnyc]

My wife is doing awesome! she just got a giant merit increase at her job, and my daughter made the dean's list last spring. I am quite sure they will both outlive me by a long shot.

Sure, I believe you, liar. :rolleyes:


Nowq why don't you knock this adversarial bullshit out and quit calling me a fucking liar? how 'bout it jimbo? Do you HAVE anything of substance or is your entire argument based on baited attacks? hmmmmm?

Don't lie and I won't call you a liar, liar.

[Silver]

You are dishonest....You are a liar.....thats just the simple truth....

If rationalizing makes you feel better, go for it....it doesn't matter to us in the least....

Your calls...??
You make one call to give the congressman your opinion....and any subsequent call is made for the sole purpose of deceiving the congressman into believing that 2 or more constituents called...you know that and I know that .....

That makes you ... A LIAR


ra·tio·nal·ize

to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives

to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct

[retiredman]

"It was a moment in time" "Lalalalala"

This may in fact be the biggest load of tripe I have ever had the misfortune to read.





fact. every time a constituent calls his or her representative, he records a moment in time when a constituent took the time to register his belief. nothing more. nothing less. See You Next Tuesday.:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Sure, I believe you, liar. :rolleyes:



Don't lie and I won't call you a liar, liar.

I have never lied, you fucking brain dead asshole. never.

and I don't NEED you to believe me to have a fuckiing infinitely better life than YOU do.:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

See You Next Tuesday.

Tell your wife I said the same. 'Cept I'll just say it, if you speak to my staff in such a manner, and she's dumb enough to marry you, she's obviously a stupid C U N T!

[jimnyc]

I have never lied, you fucking brain dead asshole. never.

and I don't NEED you to believe me to have a fuckiing infinitely better life than YOU do.:laugh2:

By marrying a no good twit like your wife? I'd rather be homeless!

[retiredman]

By marrying a no good twit like your wife? I'd rather be homeless!


so...you want to bring family members into this? am I right?

[jimnyc]

so...you want to bring family members into this? am I right?

No, I just hope yours all die so I can have the delight of pissing on their graves. I detest fucking liars like you.

[retiredman]

No, I just hope yours all die so I can have the delight of pissing on their graves. I detest fucking liars like you.


the last time your mom sucked my cock,. she damned near choked. and you'd think that being a pro, she'd have swallowed it easier. eh?:lol:

[jimnyc]

the last time your mom sucked my cock,. she damned near choked. and you'd think that being a pro, she'd have swallowed it easier. eh?:lol:

If my wife was a slimy skank like yours I guess I would have to resort to going after grandmothers too.

[jimnyc]

Thread has ran its course. Readers can decide for themselves if MFM is a lying piece of dog shit or not.

[jimnyc]

I want everyone to know that MFM was not banned for the exchange between him and myself. I can take it as good as I get it. Check his reference to Abbey when he tells her "See you next Tuesday".

In radio lingo, to bypass censors, they say C U Next Tuesday instead of the actual word.

Not very becoming of a *preacher to speak to a lady in this manner.

Unfortunately, he'll be back in 7 days, or at least his account will be auto unbanned.

I'll tolerate almost everything, even personal attacks against myself, but I WILL NOT tolerate women being spoken to on this board like that.