Blatant Lying Threads or Titles

[saveliberty]

In fact, if it’s going to happen, it has to — Monday, Nov. 28 is PA’s recount deadline.

Jill Stein's Pennsylvania recount: 4 new developments on deadline day

Fact: You didn't read the article in its entirety.
Fact: The entire state of PA will NOT be recounting.
Fact: You're a biased moron.

 

[SYTFE]

You have too much time on your hands

Said by someone with over 32,000 posts on an internet forum.

 

[Lewdog]

In fact, if it’s going to happen, it has to — Monday, Nov. 28 is PA’s recount deadline.

Jill Stein's Pennsylvania recount: 4 new developments on deadline day

Fact: You didn't read the article in its entirety.
Fact: The entire state of PA will NOT be recounting.
Fact: You're a biased moron.

I have read the article and posted an article about it. Some districts in PA have the deadline today, and some Tuesday, and VERY few have already passed.

The OP in the other thread said that Stein missed the deadline and wasn't getting a recount in PA...that's a lie.

 

[saveliberty]

I have read the article and posted an article about it. Some districts in PA have the deadline today, and some Tuesday, and VERY few have already passed.

The OP in the other thread said that Stein missed the deadline and wasn't getting a recount in PA...that's a lie.

At best the truth is Stein MAY get a partial PA recount. Certainly not a recount that roots out fraud or miss counted votes as she claimed to be attempting. You probably should reconsider Stein's motivations for the recount...she lied.

 

[Lewdog]

I have read the article and posted an article about it. Some districts in PA have the deadline today, and some Tuesday, and VERY few have already passed.

The OP in the other thread said that Stein missed the deadline and wasn't getting a recount in PA...that's a lie.

At best the truth is Stein MAY get a partial PA recount. Certainly not a recount that roots out fraud or miss counted votes as she claimed to be attempting. You probably should reconsider Stein's motivations for the recount...she lied.

Partial? She said that very few precincts had their deadline pass.

 

[koshergrl]

It has become quite a common occurrence on this forum for posters to start threads based on what is obvious lies...and many times with misleading or lying titles. Two were started today. Stein DIDN'T miss the deadline to file... yet Trump supporters flocked to the thread like flies to shit to praise the OP and trash Stein. Another OP started a thread that a Somali refugee killed people at Ohio State with a gun. Not only did the refugee NOT use a gun, he didn't kill a single person, not even a critically injured person. And people are giving Trump credit for the refugee getting shot and killed... when Obama is President still! Yet if you say something about Trump that is negative, they will quickly point out that Trump isn't President yet.

So, my question is... is there some kind of rule around here about creating threads that are complete lies and using misleading and lying thread titles? Especially in regular parts of the forum?

Yes, it is against the rules to put a misleading or untrue thread title on your threads, and the rules say if you do so, your thread will be removed to another forum or deleted.

No the mods don't enforce that rule. I don't know if it's because they're incapable of understanding the rules themselves, or if it's because they are doing it intentionally. Not that it matters.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Too much time to read the articles and get the truth? HAHAHAHAHAHA Now I know why you support Trump, you are too lazy to find out the truth and you just go with it.

I notice you didn't quote any left loon thread titles that are lies....partisan hack

I listed the ones that were started TODAY.... by Trump supporters that are BLATANT lies. And you guys have eaten it up.

Want a cookie?

How about instead of trying to be bully, you do some inner reflection and how dumb you are making yourself look by accepting threads from your fellow Trump supporters as facts without reading the articles and doing research into the truth?

How about you stop letting insignificant thread titles work yourself up into a lather and then cease trying to dictate what I do?

You're acting like a petulant child

He's a Socialist... and typically Socialists have the mentality of a petulant child~

 

[tycho1572]

It has become quite a common occurrence on this forum for posters to start threads based on what is obvious lies...and many times with misleading or lying titles. Two were started today. Stein DIDN'T miss the deadline to file... yet Trump supporters flocked to the thread like flies to shit to praise the OP and trash Stein. Another OP started a thread that a Somali refugee killed people at Ohio State with a gun. Not only did the refugee NOT use a gun, he didn't kill a single person, not even a critically injured person. And people are giving Trump credit for the refugee getting shot and killed... when Obama is President still! Yet if you say something about Trump that is negative, they will quickly point out that Trump isn't President yet.

So, my question is... is there some kind of rule around here about creating threads that are complete lies and using misleading and lying thread titles? Especially in regular parts of the forum?

Have you ever considered growing up so you aren't always butthurt?

 

[saveliberty]

Partial? She said that very few precincts had their deadline pass.

Look up what partial means moron.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It has become quite a common occurrence on this forum for posters to start threads based on what is obvious lies...and many times with misleading or lying titles. Two were started today. Stein DIDN'T miss the deadline to file... yet Trump supporters flocked to the thread like flies to shit to praise the OP and trash Stein. Another OP started a thread that a Somali refugee killed people at Ohio State with a gun. Not only did the refugee NOT use a gun, he didn't kill a single person, not even a critically injured person. And people are giving Trump credit for the refugee getting shot and killed... when Obama is President still! Yet if you say something about Trump that is negative, they will quickly point out that Trump isn't President yet.

So, my question is... is there some kind of rule around here about creating threads that are complete lies and using misleading and lying thread titles? Especially in regular parts of the forum?

Like nonsense about Russians hacking our election or using propaganda to get Trump elected?

You can say the Russian thing is a lie all you want... but you haven't been able to dispute a single bit of the evidence provided, in any of the articles I posted... from numerous sources, not just the OP from the Washington Post.

But then again, you guys don't read the evidence provided for you. You just stand back and ask for more evidence... and then you don't read that evidence and ask for more evidence... and then when given more evidence you don't read that either... it's like a never ending cycle until people just get tired of dealing with your nonsense and quit. Then you act like you won the discussion.

Because you haven't provided any evidence.

No, because you don't want to read the articles and try to refute them other than to say the typical Trump supporter defense, "BUT BUT BUT they are a Liberal biased source!"

Someone on here that is a Trump supporter in a thread just posted today a Washington Post article to support one of their Trump stories... I laughed out loud about it.

Please link to my quote saying the Washington Post is a "liberal biased source." The only links you post are to statements by anonymous self-proclaimed, or Washington Post proclaimed, "experts," and they never provide proof of their claims or any of their so-called "research" to back up what they say. Just anonymous quotes. That's all.

I suppose Lewdog just innocently missed my request that he back up his assertion that I called the Washington Post a "liberal biased source," and I'm not even talking about direct quote, find something remotely close to that if you can. Surely Lew didn't just ignore my request because I know Lew is a huge proponent of evidence and linking to sources. Must have been an error. Now you can rectify it.

 

[saveliberty]

Rectify probably got his attention...

 

[Lewdog]

Partial? She said that very few precincts had their deadline pass.

Look up what partial means moron.

I know exactly what partial means...but that doesn't mean to the extent you portrayed it. Partial could mean only one precinct... but that isn't going to make the whole process meaningless.

 

[Lewdog]

Like nonsense about Russians hacking our election or using propaganda to get Trump elected?

You can say the Russian thing is a lie all you want... but you haven't been able to dispute a single bit of the evidence provided, in any of the articles I posted... from numerous sources, not just the OP from the Washington Post.

But then again, you guys don't read the evidence provided for you. You just stand back and ask for more evidence... and then you don't read that evidence and ask for more evidence... and then when given more evidence you don't read that either... it's like a never ending cycle until people just get tired of dealing with your nonsense and quit. Then you act like you won the discussion.

Because you haven't provided any evidence.

No, because you don't want to read the articles and try to refute them other than to say the typical Trump supporter defense, "BUT BUT BUT they are a Liberal biased source!"

Someone on here that is a Trump supporter in a thread just posted today a Washington Post article to support one of their Trump stories... I laughed out loud about it.

Please link to my quote saying the Washington Post is a "liberal biased source." The only links you post are to statements by anonymous self-proclaimed, or Washington Post proclaimed, "experts," and they never provide proof of their claims or any of their so-called "research" to back up what they say. Just anonymous quotes. That's all.

I suppose Lewdog just innocently missed my request that he back up his assertion that I called the Washington Post a "liberal biased source," and I'm not even talking about direct quote, find something remotely close to that if you can. Surely Lew didn't just ignore my request because I know Lew is a huge proponent of evidence and linking to sources. Must have been an error. Now you can rectify it.

Whether you said or not...it was said by soo many people in that thread it tends to bleed together. But as I said, I provided multiple sources and links other than just the OP... have you read those? Like the one that states they traced a lot of the fake news stories to Russian hackers in Macedonia?

 

[koshergrl]

Here's one: Rightist Maggot Writes "Trump is going to do to you Muslims what Hitler did to the Jews"

There is one troll here (multiple accounts) who likes to include derogatory anti-right winger epithets in all his thread titles in the protected forums...despite the fact that there is nothing in any of the threads that actually specifies that "rightists" are involved in whatever crime he he accusing them of.

But the mods refuse to pull them because they aren't "specific to a particular poster" which is nonsense. It doesn't have to be specific to a particular poster to be divisive, inflammatory, or deliberately misleading.

But meh.

 

[saveliberty]

Partial? She said that very few precincts had their deadline pass.

Look up what partial means moron.

I know exactly what partial means...but that doesn't mean to the extent you portrayed it. Partial could mean only one precinct... but that isn't going to make the whole process meaningless.

Does it mean one precinct Lew? How many would make it meaningless for you Lew?

 

[koshergrl]

Here's another one...of course, the article sourced says nothing about the political leanings of the crazed person who attacked this unfortunate lady:

Rightist Trash Caught On Camera Accosting Woman Wearing Hijab

 

[Lewdog]

Partial? She said that very few precincts had their deadline pass.

Look up what partial means moron.

I know exactly what partial means...but that doesn't mean to the extent you portrayed it. Partial could mean only one precinct... but that isn't going to make the whole process meaningless.

Does it mean one precinct Lew? How many would make it meaningless for you Lew?

Well that depends on the size of them. According to Billy Penn there is like 10,000 voting divisions in PA.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can say the Russian thing is a lie all you want... but you haven't been able to dispute a single bit of the evidence provided, in any of the articles I posted... from numerous sources, not just the OP from the Washington Post.

But then again, you guys don't read the evidence provided for you. You just stand back and ask for more evidence... and then you don't read that evidence and ask for more evidence... and then when given more evidence you don't read that either... it's like a never ending cycle until people just get tired of dealing with your nonsense and quit. Then you act like you won the discussion.

Because you haven't provided any evidence.

No, because you don't want to read the articles and try to refute them other than to say the typical Trump supporter defense, "BUT BUT BUT they are a Liberal biased source!"

Someone on here that is a Trump supporter in a thread just posted today a Washington Post article to support one of their Trump stories... I laughed out loud about it.

Please link to my quote saying the Washington Post is a "liberal biased source." The only links you post are to statements by anonymous self-proclaimed, or Washington Post proclaimed, "experts," and they never provide proof of their claims or any of their so-called "research" to back up what they say. Just anonymous quotes. That's all.

I suppose Lewdog just innocently missed my request that he back up his assertion that I called the Washington Post a "liberal biased source," and I'm not even talking about direct quote, find something remotely close to that if you can. Surely Lew didn't just ignore my request because I know Lew is a huge proponent of evidence and linking to sources. Must have been an error. Now you can rectify it.

Whether you said or not...it was said by soo many people in that thread it tends to bleed together. But as I said, I provided multiple sources and links other than just the OP... have you read those? Like the one that states they traced a lot of the fake news stories to Russian hackers in Macedonia?

I repeat, your problem is that you post links to stories which state things that are not backed up by any amount of evidence. Just because some anonymous "expert" says something doesn't make it true.

 

[Lewdog]

Because you haven't provided any evidence.

No, because you don't want to read the articles and try to refute them other than to say the typical Trump supporter defense, "BUT BUT BUT they are a Liberal biased source!"

Someone on here that is a Trump supporter in a thread just posted today a Washington Post article to support one of their Trump stories... I laughed out loud about it.

Please link to my quote saying the Washington Post is a "liberal biased source." The only links you post are to statements by anonymous self-proclaimed, or Washington Post proclaimed, "experts," and they never provide proof of their claims or any of their so-called "research" to back up what they say. Just anonymous quotes. That's all.

I suppose Lewdog just innocently missed my request that he back up his assertion that I called the Washington Post a "liberal biased source," and I'm not even talking about direct quote, find something remotely close to that if you can. Surely Lew didn't just ignore my request because I know Lew is a huge proponent of evidence and linking to sources. Must have been an error. Now you can rectify it.

Whether you said or not...it was said by soo many people in that thread it tends to bleed together. But as I said, I provided multiple sources and links other than just the OP... have you read those? Like the one that states they traced a lot of the fake news stories to Russian hackers in Macedonia?

I repeat, your problem is that you post links to stories which state things that are not backed up by any amount of evidence. Just because some anonymous "expert" says something doesn't make it true.

And like I said, why are you not in the threads with Trump supporters claiming millions of illegals and dead people voted for Hillary, asking for specific evidence when they provide nothing?

I gave you multiple articles but you only quote from one. Why is that? You didn't read the others?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, because you don't want to read the articles and try to refute them other than to say the typical Trump supporter defense, "BUT BUT BUT they are a Liberal biased source!"

Someone on here that is a Trump supporter in a thread just posted today a Washington Post article to support one of their Trump stories... I laughed out loud about it.

Please link to my quote saying the Washington Post is a "liberal biased source." The only links you post are to statements by anonymous self-proclaimed, or Washington Post proclaimed, "experts," and they never provide proof of their claims or any of their so-called "research" to back up what they say. Just anonymous quotes. That's all.

I suppose Lewdog just innocently missed my request that he back up his assertion that I called the Washington Post a "liberal biased source," and I'm not even talking about direct quote, find something remotely close to that if you can. Surely Lew didn't just ignore my request because I know Lew is a huge proponent of evidence and linking to sources. Must have been an error. Now you can rectify it.

Whether you said or not...it was said by soo many people in that thread it tends to bleed together. But as I said, I provided multiple sources and links other than just the OP... have you read those? Like the one that states they traced a lot of the fake news stories to Russian hackers in Macedonia?

I repeat, your problem is that you post links to stories which state things that are not backed up by any amount of evidence. Just because some anonymous "expert" says something doesn't make it true.

And like I said, why are you not in the threads with Trump supporters claiming millions of illegals and dead people voted for Hillary, asking for specific evidence when they provide nothing?

I gave you multiple articles but you only quote from one. Why is that? You didn't read the others?

You gave multiple articles all citing so-called experts, anonymous or otherwise, without providing any evidence to back up their claims.

Why am I not in other threads doing what you want me to do? Partially because now you've told me I need to do it so I don't want to, and partially because time is finite and I don't have the inclination to jump into every single thread on this board.