Why are liberals such liars?

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

2001400ex

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

Bob doesn't understand how you can get one part technically wrong and still be right in the actual point one is making.

How answer how she is lying. Lil lyin Bob.

TurdBomber

RaceBannon said:

The money is still on this going through courts back to the Supremes who will uphold Roe.

I'm of the opinion that this can hurt GOP candidates including Trump. Britt Hume thinks the 60 million abortions since Roe are not what people had in mind. We've gone from safe, legal, and rare to birth control.

LIPO.

I wonder how those pussy hat wearing “shout your abortion” radical feminists are feeling right about now.

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

Bob doesn't understand how you can get one part technically wrong and still be right in the actual point one is making.

So you were right about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it

2001400ex

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

Bob doesn't understand how you can get one part technically wrong and still be right in the actual point one is making.

So you were right about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it

Do you can't answer how AOC is lying. Weird. Lil lyin Bob.

Sledog

I'm a conservative and you all know exactly where I stand on abortion.

As I have said many times I am for retroactive abortions and I am the lone decider of who it applies to.

UWhuskytskeet

Sledog said:

I'm a conservative and you all know exactly where I stand on abortion.

As I have said many times I am for retroactive abortions and I am the lone decider of who it applies to.

Yourself?

2001400ex

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

I think you need to turn the question around. When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong? Will he melt if he admits it? And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

Pretty simple really, if you're unwilling to admit an error even after it's obvious that you've made one and you're willing to lie about it, why should your word be taken on any other subject?

When the stakes are so low, why can't O'Keefed just admit that he was wrong?

That I cannot answer.

And why is it, that I find this trait so often in liberals?

I can't answer that either, except to say it's not my experience. I find just as many bullshit propaganda paper hangers out there on the right as I do on the left. There is no shortage of ill-informed partisan bananas of every stripe. Just my experience anyway.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of people on both sides who are ill informed, the difference I find is when you confront the person with making the false statements with the facts and how they then respond to the facts.

We all make errors. Hondo claiming that Social Security didn't exist in the 1950s and then still trying to claim that he was "technically" correct after was shown that he had his head up his ass is not a behavior I've ever seen in a Conservative. Not saying there isn't one out there but I've never seen it.

I didn't say it was technically correct. Idiot.

See, he just lies.

Link? Bob after I looked it up and saw it was under 2%, I said the point I was making was still correct. Even tho I was technically wrong on that point.

Now answer how she's lying.

So you were just "technically wrong" about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it. Thanks for providing a real time example of what I was talking about Hondo.

Bob doesn't understand how you can get one part technically wrong and still be right in the actual point one is making.

So you were right about Social Security not existing in the 1950s. Got it

So you can't answer how AOC is lying. Weird. Lil lyin Bob.

Bump for Bob.

Pitchfork51

I don't get the argument against abortions

I don't want these ghetto fags raising ugly girls and criminal sons

Abort that shit

creepycoug

Pitchfork51 said:

I don't get the argument against abortions

I don't want these ghetto fags raising ugly girls and criminal sons

Abort that shit

I nominate @Pitchfork51 for SCOTUS.