Cain's campaign manager lies on Hannity

[Liability]

This is a perfect example of how CON$ try to control the definitions of words, like good little brainwashed DittoTards. In this case CON$ want to cling to their rationalization that as long as they pretend to be too stupid to KNOW they are lying, then they have a license to lie their America-hating asses off without guilt. This is the "Reagan Rationalization" for his Iran Contra lies. St Ronnie pretended that he believed his own lies in his "heart", so the lying POS was not really a liar.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

REAGAN (11/13/86): We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

REAGAN (3/4/87): A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

No, you typically dishonest partisan hack liberal. It's an example of you trying (but, thankfully, failing) to distort the definition.

If you say something incorrect, but you don't know it's incorrect, you have not lied. You have only made an incorrect statement.

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

-- Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

You, being the deceptive hack you are, go for one of the lesser definitions which fails to convey the accurate component of the word "lie:" that is, you try to conflate a mere erroneous statement with an intent to deceive.

But, you deceive nobody in the process.

Ah, the Liability seal of approval is on Cain this time around? As I recall, you were all about Fred Thompson last time around. Keeping up your winning streak of credibilty, I see.

Ah, another boring half-wit coming up with that yada yada crap as though the observation was witty, original or even marginally persuasive.

I supported Fred. Fred ran a poor campaign with no energy. He got his clock cleaned as a result. Too bad, too. As poor a campaigner as he turned out to be, he was still a vastly superior candidate in terms of what he could have offered us.

My support of Fred has no bearing on credibility, you imbecile.

in your world, only those who endorse and support the candidate who ultimately prevails has credibility?

You are indeed a schmuck.

 

[madasheck]

No, you typically dishonest partisan hack liberal. It's an example of you trying (but, thankfully, failing) to distort the definition.

If you say something incorrect, but you don't know it's incorrect, you have not lied. You have only made an incorrect statement.

-- Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

You, being the deceptive hack you are, go for one of the lesser definitions which fails to convey the accurate component of the word "lie:" that is, you try to conflate a mere erroneous statement with an intent to deceive.

But, you deceive nobody in the process.

Ah, the Liability seal of approval is on Cain this time around? As I recall, you were all about Fred Thompson last time around. Keeping up your winning streak of credibilty, I see.

Ah, another boring half-wit coming up with that yada yada crap as though the observation was witty, original or even marginally persuasive.

I supported Fred. Fred ran a poor campaign with no energy. He got his clock cleaned as a result. Too bad, too. As poor a campaigner as he turned out to be, he was still a vastly superior candidate in terms of what he could have offered us.

My support of Fred has no bearing on credibility, you imbecile.

in your world, only those who endorse and support the candidate who ultimately prevails has credibility?

You are indeed a schmuck.

You orgasmed all through that campaign and didn't recognize that lack of energy until his campaign was over.

And yes it does have a bearing on credibility because you're supporting another loser now.

Has Cain been warned that you endorsed him?

 

[edthecynic]

As you said? What you said was wrong and poignantly stupid.

What Mr. Block said was erroneous, but neither you nor that dipshit lying skank Raving Liar nor any of the other sub-moron liberoidals who toss the term around so casually can point to even one iota of evidence that he KNEW that what he was saying was wrong when he said it.

I haven't shifted jack shit, you dishonest pussy.

You are trying that gambit and you remain a fail at that like you are in most other aspects of life.

Again, for the extremely slow and habitually dishonest (i.e., you moron uber-libs): One can be wrong without being a liar. You can assign the label of "liar" to Block. But you have yet to back it up. ALL you can do is argue (correctly) that what he said was wrong. You cannot show that he knew he was wrong when he said it. This explains why you have not shown any such thing. You can't.

Repeating your bullshit mantra still doesn't make your bullshit any less bullshit.

This is a perfect example of how CON$ try to control the definitions of words, like good little brainwashed DittoTards. In this case CON$ want to cling to their rationalization that as long as they pretend to be too stupid to KNOW they are lying, then they have a license to lie their America-hating asses off without guilt. This is the "Reagan Rationalization" for his Iran Contra lies. St Ronnie pretended that he believed his own lies in his "heart", so the lying POS was not really a liar.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

REAGAN (11/13/86): We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

REAGAN (3/4/87): A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

Lie - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of LIE

1
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

2
: something that misleads or deceives

No, you typically dishonest partisan hack liberal. It's an example of you trying (but, thankfully, failing) to distort the definition.

If you say something incorrect, but you don't know it's incorrect, you have not lied. You have only made an incorrect statement.

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

-- Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

You, being the deceptive hack you are, go for one of the lesser definitions which fails to convey the accurate component of the word "lie:" that is, you try to conflate a mere erroneous statement with an intent to deceive.

But, you deceive nobody in the process.

The most professional liars tell just enough truth and then shut up.
You KNOWINGLY left this out of the definition you cited, liar:

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun

3.an inaccurate or false statement.

It says nothing about KNOWING.

And rather than give a "lesser definition," as you KNOWINGLY lied about, I gave the COMPLETE #1 definition from WEBSTER'S Dictionary, not some lesser dictionary like you used, which does not always require KNOWLEDGE.

 

[Liability]

This is a perfect example of how CON$ try to control the definitions of words, like good little brainwashed DittoTards. In this case CON$ want to cling to their rationalization that as long as they pretend to be too stupid to KNOW they are lying, then they have a license to lie their America-hating asses off without guilt. This is the "Reagan Rationalization" for his Iran Contra lies. St Ronnie pretended that he believed his own lies in his "heart", so the lying POS was not really a liar.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

REAGAN (11/13/86): We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

REAGAN (3/4/87): A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

Lie - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of LIE

1
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

2
: something that misleads or deceives

No, you typically dishonest partisan hack liberal. It's an example of you trying (but, thankfully, failing) to distort the definition.

If you say something incorrect, but you don't know it's incorrect, you have not lied. You have only made an incorrect statement.

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

-- Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

You, being the deceptive hack you are, go for one of the lesser definitions which fails to convey the accurate component of the word "lie:" that is, you try to conflate a mere erroneous statement with an intent to deceive.

But, you deceive nobody in the process.

The most professional liars tell just enough truth and then shut up.
You KNOWINGLY left this out of the definition you cited, liar:

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun

3.an inaccurate or false statement.

It says nothing about KNOWING.

And rather than give a "lesser definition," as you KNOWINGLY lied about, I gave the COMPLETE #1 definition from WEBSTER'S Dictionary, not some lesser dictionary like you used, which does not always require KNOWLEDGE.

The definition I provided, you flaming dishonest asshole, absolutely DID address the PRIMARY point of a "lie" which is that it goes beyond being merely wrong. It has to be delieberate to be a lie.

Otherwise, you fucking moron, anybody who ever makes a mistake is automatically a "liar."

Even YOU (a proven moron) can't be quite THAT absurd. That would leave only one other viable option; that is, you MUST be a filthy liar!

Or maybe you can be that absurd.

But, it hardly matters.

You have just proved yourself to be a massively stupid turd.

 

[Ravi]

Not only is Liarbility a liar, he's also pathetic.

Sad

Raving Liar has nothing but dishonesty in her bag of trick.

She can't even recognize the truth.

Speaking of pathetic, I heard a wide angle lens is needed to take a picutre of you.

True or false?

If it means your little pal mal will stop stalking me, the answer is yes.

 

[edthecynic]

No, you typically dishonest partisan hack liberal. It's an example of you trying (but, thankfully, failing) to distort the definition.

If you say something incorrect, but you don't know it's incorrect, you have not lied. You have only made an incorrect statement.

-- Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

You, being the deceptive hack you are, go for one of the lesser definitions which fails to convey the accurate component of the word "lie:" that is, you try to conflate a mere erroneous statement with an intent to deceive.

But, you deceive nobody in the process.

The most professional liars tell just enough truth and then shut up.
You KNOWINGLY left this out of the definition you cited, liar:

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun

3.an inaccurate or false statement.

It says nothing about KNOWING.

And rather than give a "lesser definition," as you KNOWINGLY lied about, I gave the COMPLETE #1 definition from WEBSTER'S Dictionary, not some lesser dictionary like you used, which does not always require KNOWLEDGE.

The definition I provided, you flaming dishonest asshole, absolutely DID address the PRIMARY point of a "lie" which is that it goes beyond being merely wrong. It has to be delieberate to be a lie.

Otherwise, you fucking moron, anybody who ever makes a mistake is automatically a "liar."

Even YOU (a proven moron) can't be quite THAT absurd. That would leave only one other viable option; that is, you MUST be a filthy liar!

Or maybe you can be that absurd.

But, it hardly matters.

You have just proved yourself to be a massively stupid turd.

Even after TWO dictionaries say it is not necessary to know the lie you are telling is a lie, the dictionaries are lying!!!
CON$, who claim to be the smartest and most informed people on Earth, are desperate to be able to keep pretending to be too stupid to know they are liars. That's how important lying is to CON$ervatism.

 

[Liability]

The most professional liars tell just enough truth and then shut up.
You KNOWINGLY left this out of the definition you cited, liar:

lie
1   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun

3.an inaccurate or false statement.

It says nothing about KNOWING.

And rather than give a "lesser definition," as you KNOWINGLY lied about, I gave the COMPLETE #1 definition from WEBSTER'S Dictionary, not some lesser dictionary like you used, which does not always require KNOWLEDGE.

The definition I provided, you flaming dishonest asshole, absolutely DID address the PRIMARY point of a "lie" which is that it goes beyond being merely wrong. It has to be delieberate to be a lie.

Otherwise, you fucking moron, anybody who ever makes a mistake is automatically a "liar."

Even YOU (a proven moron) can't be quite THAT absurd. That would leave only one other viable option; that is, you MUST be a filthy liar!

Or maybe you can be that absurd.

But, it hardly matters.

You have just proved yourself to be a massively stupid turd.

Even after TWO dictionaries say it is not necessary to know the lie you are telling is a lie, the dictionaries are lying!!!
CON$, who claim to be the smartest and most informed people on Earth, are desperate to be able to keep pretending to be too stupid to know they are liars. That's how important lying is to CON$ervatism.

edthesickdick and BettyBoob cannot grasp the glaringly obvious.

It's still a simple proposition.

If anything anybody says which is inaccurate is "a lie," then there is no such thing as an honest mistake.

You leftwingfubars are simply not at all credible.

Both of you two asswipes would be the first in line making apologies for a mis-statement made by President Obama even if there were good evidence that it went beyond a mere ignorant mistake. And everybody who reads your posts knows that to be true.

Partisan hack trolls like you have no credibility -- for good reason.

Keep up the inept work, ladies.

 

[kaz]

Cain had better be very careful

All his denials and character attacks can come back to haunt him. What recent politics has taught us is that Americans can tolerate an adulterer but will not tolerate a liar

Never hurt Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama...

What do you suppose the common denominator is there, Mr. Republican?