Upload
Login or register

ishotthedeputy

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:6/21/2011
Last Login:10/01/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#9673
Highest Content Rank:#2772
Highest Comment Rank:#362
Content Thumbs: 6995 total,  7950 ,  955
Comment Thumbs: 17056 total,  19709 ,  2653
Content Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 169 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 170 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 71% (710/1000)
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:2
Content Views:245991
Times Content Favorited:440 times
Total Comments Made:3283
FJ Points:23869
Favorite Tags: a (2) | he (2) | out (2) | Stupid (2)

Text Posts

  • Views: 44174
    Thumbs Up 2006 Thumbs Down 324 Total: +1682
    Comments: 94
    Favorites: 79
    Uploaded: 07/02/12
    Trust me, I'm a doctor. Trust me, I'm a doctor.
  • Views: 41752
    Thumbs Up 1604 Thumbs Down 107 Total: +1497
    Comments: 124
    Favorites: 176
    Uploaded: 10/09/12
    This kid This kid
  • Views: 33076
    Thumbs Up 1303 Thumbs Down 95 Total: +1208
    Comments: 26
    Favorites: 85
    Uploaded: 10/02/12
    Potter Fun Time Potter Fun Time
  • Views: 34245
    Thumbs Up 1302 Thumbs Down 138 Total: +1164
    Comments: 23
    Favorites: 28
    Uploaded: 07/05/12
    Bad Luck Ducreux Bad Luck Ducreux
  • Views: 14455
    Thumbs Up 524 Thumbs Down 26 Total: +498
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 24
    Uploaded: 01/27/13
    Punchline Punchline
  • Views: 21248
    Thumbs Up 514 Thumbs Down 48 Total: +466
    Comments: 13
    Favorites: 12
    Uploaded: 02/10/13
    Thumper sees you Thumper sees you

latest user's comments

#163 - I'm not referencing one article, but his whole page. Here's th…  [+] (1 reply) 3 hours ago on Trumper Comp58 0
User avatar
#164 - noblexfenrir (1 hour ago) [-]
Sure why not:

-Pant's on fire claims-

""Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever."

Calling this claim a lie is absolutely absurd because it's trying to turn a non-literal statement into an objective one. If I fall down the stairs and say it was "the most pain I've ever felt" am I a complete liar if 20 years ago I did something that I would say hurt more? No because it's reading too much into it. He's speaking of current time, and he's not wrong. Higher unemployment, single motherhood, rates of violence and murder, etc. These are objective issues and he was expressing how dire their current situation is.

"The number of illegal immigrants "could be 3 million. It could be 30 million."

They say zero possibility, I find that hard to believe since assessment of these numbers is vague at best. Direct numbers years ago pointed to 11-12 million, there have been analysts looking at remittance transfers and these could suggest significantly higher numbers one of which was suggested was 30 million. The fact this is pants on fire is idiotic since there are reputable sources for it's claim, yet Hillary makes the claim "After Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, "within 24 hours, Americans lost $100 billion from our 401(k)s."" and it's rated mostly true while admitting it's not a long term problem, I can say during any daily low in the stock market that people have lost record amounts in their 401k's, but I would sound like an idiot for suggesting it means anything. There is no context in verifying the "truth" in these statements.

""Inner-city crime is reaching record levels.""

Rated pants on fire because "A possible uptick doesn't erase 25 years of decline." yet areas like Baltimore, St. Louis, and Milwakee are at the same levels they were in 1990 and various other areas like Chicago, New orleans, and DC are back to 2000-2005 levels. When either 100% or 50% of your decline is rendered null in the last 5 or so years, yeah it fucking does erase the previous years.

"Says the U.S. election system is "rigged.""

With what went on in the Democrat primaries, illegal immigrants and felons casting votes, and a common system where the dead surprisingly rise every 4 years to cast a ballot, I don't understand how this could possible be "pants on fire", half true or even maybe mostly false, but pants on fire is just being blind.

""Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ ""

Lol the reason this is pants on fire is "Phonetic analysis says otherwise.". So it doesn't matter if her proposed tax plan is going to raise taxes on the middle class, because she didn't say it directly from her fucking mouth hole, Trump is therefor blatantly lying. This could have easily been "mostly true" with the reason being: Plan will increase taxes on middle class, but never actually said the words. See simple.

I could keep going but I'm honestly getting angry reading either blatant misrepresentation after misrepresentation or individual comments removed from their context taken at face value. Even conflating the deflation of the housing bubble with the housing crisis to rate it mostly true when Clinton said Trump rooted for the housing crash. There is a massive difference between the two, and if you actually know that difference, her lie becomes exactly that, a lie. and if she willingly did it on purpose, a malicious one.
#161 - Literally during the debate he said he never claimed the Chine…  [+] (3 replies) 09/29/2016 on Trumper Comp58 0
User avatar
#162 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2016) [-]
You clearly do very little research if you didn't even read the politifact article you're speaking of, although I'd advise against politifact since they have a very clear bias and so I wouldn't consider them an objective source on the matter involving presidential candidates.

He said the involvement of china in global warming was a joke, but he does think global warming is a hoax, which I adamantly disagree with him on. So him saying he never claimed such a thing is true, since the only time the issue was mentioned he made clear it was in joking form.

If this is your strongest example then that's quite sad.
#163 - ishotthedeputy (3 hours ago) [-]
I'm not referencing one article, but his whole page. Here's the link www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Politifact is a very reliable source and is widely regarded as the least biased site out there. Just because they're pointing out his consistent lies doesn't mean they're biased. Actually you thinking there is one is a pretty big indicator that *you're* blindly biased. If you want to go through the "False" and "Pants on Fire" claims and tell me how they're so biased and overlook things, be my guest.
User avatar
#164 - noblexfenrir (1 hour ago) [-]
Sure why not:

-Pant's on fire claims-

""Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever."

Calling this claim a lie is absolutely absurd because it's trying to turn a non-literal statement into an objective one. If I fall down the stairs and say it was "the most pain I've ever felt" am I a complete liar if 20 years ago I did something that I would say hurt more? No because it's reading too much into it. He's speaking of current time, and he's not wrong. Higher unemployment, single motherhood, rates of violence and murder, etc. These are objective issues and he was expressing how dire their current situation is.

"The number of illegal immigrants "could be 3 million. It could be 30 million."

They say zero possibility, I find that hard to believe since assessment of these numbers is vague at best. Direct numbers years ago pointed to 11-12 million, there have been analysts looking at remittance transfers and these could suggest significantly higher numbers one of which was suggested was 30 million. The fact this is pants on fire is idiotic since there are reputable sources for it's claim, yet Hillary makes the claim "After Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, "within 24 hours, Americans lost $100 billion from our 401(k)s."" and it's rated mostly true while admitting it's not a long term problem, I can say during any daily low in the stock market that people have lost record amounts in their 401k's, but I would sound like an idiot for suggesting it means anything. There is no context in verifying the "truth" in these statements.

""Inner-city crime is reaching record levels.""

Rated pants on fire because "A possible uptick doesn't erase 25 years of decline." yet areas like Baltimore, St. Louis, and Milwakee are at the same levels they were in 1990 and various other areas like Chicago, New orleans, and DC are back to 2000-2005 levels. When either 100% or 50% of your decline is rendered null in the last 5 or so years, yeah it fucking does erase the previous years.

"Says the U.S. election system is "rigged.""

With what went on in the Democrat primaries, illegal immigrants and felons casting votes, and a common system where the dead surprisingly rise every 4 years to cast a ballot, I don't understand how this could possible be "pants on fire", half true or even maybe mostly false, but pants on fire is just being blind.

""Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ ""

Lol the reason this is pants on fire is "Phonetic analysis says otherwise.". So it doesn't matter if her proposed tax plan is going to raise taxes on the middle class, because she didn't say it directly from her fucking mouth hole, Trump is therefor blatantly lying. This could have easily been "mostly true" with the reason being: Plan will increase taxes on middle class, but never actually said the words. See simple.

I could keep going but I'm honestly getting angry reading either blatant misrepresentation after misrepresentation or individual comments removed from their context taken at face value. Even conflating the deflation of the housing bubble with the housing crisis to rate it mostly true when Clinton said Trump rooted for the housing crash. There is a massive difference between the two, and if you actually know that difference, her lie becomes exactly that, a lie. and if she willingly did it on purpose, a malicious one.
#159 - For the suggestion that we shouldn't talk about a situation we…  [+] (5 replies) 09/29/2016 on Trumper Comp58 -2
User avatar
#160 - noblexfenrir (09/29/2016) [-]
"you sure are making a lot of big assumptions that make the whole situation just peachy-keen"

I made no assumptions in my write-up, I gave clear reasons this could be something without malicious undertones.

" Just seriously look at the circumstances and ask which is more likely"

Which is more likely, Trump is taking the advice of his legal team (who know more about him on tax law) OR Trump is hiding something that isn't available in his financial filings, public record, or statements he's already made (He already very clearly stated he pays as little tax as possible, he doesn't shy away from this.)? The former is justified by the very nature of someone listening to individuals they hired on their area of expertise, the latter requires a malicious intent to hide information AND for this information to be impossible to access anywhere else or him not admitting to it already. The latter is more of a reach than the former.

" Trump has been lying this whole campaign"

Examples please. And no, being vague is not lying.
#161 - ishotthedeputy (09/29/2016) [-]
Literally during the debate he said he never claimed the Chinese invented the concept of global warming when he clearly tweeted that exact same thing. Politifact has a bunch of other ludicrous examples so I'll just direct you to that.
User avatar
#162 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2016) [-]
You clearly do very little research if you didn't even read the politifact article you're speaking of, although I'd advise against politifact since they have a very clear bias and so I wouldn't consider them an objective source on the matter involving presidential candidates.

He said the involvement of china in global warming was a joke, but he does think global warming is a hoax, which I adamantly disagree with him on. So him saying he never claimed such a thing is true, since the only time the issue was mentioned he made clear it was in joking form.

If this is your strongest example then that's quite sad.
#163 - ishotthedeputy (3 hours ago) [-]
I'm not referencing one article, but his whole page. Here's the link www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Politifact is a very reliable source and is widely regarded as the least biased site out there. Just because they're pointing out his consistent lies doesn't mean they're biased. Actually you thinking there is one is a pretty big indicator that *you're* blindly biased. If you want to go through the "False" and "Pants on Fire" claims and tell me how they're so biased and overlook things, be my guest.
User avatar
#164 - noblexfenrir (1 hour ago) [-]
Sure why not:

-Pant's on fire claims-

""Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever."

Calling this claim a lie is absolutely absurd because it's trying to turn a non-literal statement into an objective one. If I fall down the stairs and say it was "the most pain I've ever felt" am I a complete liar if 20 years ago I did something that I would say hurt more? No because it's reading too much into it. He's speaking of current time, and he's not wrong. Higher unemployment, single motherhood, rates of violence and murder, etc. These are objective issues and he was expressing how dire their current situation is.

"The number of illegal immigrants "could be 3 million. It could be 30 million."

They say zero possibility, I find that hard to believe since assessment of these numbers is vague at best. Direct numbers years ago pointed to 11-12 million, there have been analysts looking at remittance transfers and these could suggest significantly higher numbers one of which was suggested was 30 million. The fact this is pants on fire is idiotic since there are reputable sources for it's claim, yet Hillary makes the claim "After Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, "within 24 hours, Americans lost $100 billion from our 401(k)s."" and it's rated mostly true while admitting it's not a long term problem, I can say during any daily low in the stock market that people have lost record amounts in their 401k's, but I would sound like an idiot for suggesting it means anything. There is no context in verifying the "truth" in these statements.

""Inner-city crime is reaching record levels.""

Rated pants on fire because "A possible uptick doesn't erase 25 years of decline." yet areas like Baltimore, St. Louis, and Milwakee are at the same levels they were in 1990 and various other areas like Chicago, New orleans, and DC are back to 2000-2005 levels. When either 100% or 50% of your decline is rendered null in the last 5 or so years, yeah it fucking does erase the previous years.

"Says the U.S. election system is "rigged.""

With what went on in the Democrat primaries, illegal immigrants and felons casting votes, and a common system where the dead surprisingly rise every 4 years to cast a ballot, I don't understand how this could possible be "pants on fire", half true or even maybe mostly false, but pants on fire is just being blind.

""Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ ""

Lol the reason this is pants on fire is "Phonetic analysis says otherwise.". So it doesn't matter if her proposed tax plan is going to raise taxes on the middle class, because she didn't say it directly from her fucking mouth hole, Trump is therefor blatantly lying. This could have easily been "mostly true" with the reason being: Plan will increase taxes on middle class, but never actually said the words. See simple.

I could keep going but I'm honestly getting angry reading either blatant misrepresentation after misrepresentation or individual comments removed from their context taken at face value. Even conflating the deflation of the housing bubble with the housing crisis to rate it mostly true when Clinton said Trump rooted for the housing crash. There is a massive difference between the two, and if you actually know that difference, her lie becomes exactly that, a lie. and if she willingly did it on purpose, a malicious one.
#149 - Pretty much every candidate from the 70's has released them. Q…  [+] (7 replies) 09/28/2016 on Trumper Comp58 -2
User avatar
#158 - notagainpls (09/28/2016) [-]
See comment >>#65
#159 - ishotthedeputy (09/29/2016) [-]
For the suggestion that we shouldn't talk about a situation we don't know about, you sure are making a lot of big assumptions that make the whole situation just peachy-keen. Just seriously look at the circumstances and ask which is more likely. Trump has been lying this whole campaign, what makes this different?
User avatar
#160 - noblexfenrir (09/29/2016) [-]
"you sure are making a lot of big assumptions that make the whole situation just peachy-keen"

I made no assumptions in my write-up, I gave clear reasons this could be something without malicious undertones.

" Just seriously look at the circumstances and ask which is more likely"

Which is more likely, Trump is taking the advice of his legal team (who know more about him on tax law) OR Trump is hiding something that isn't available in his financial filings, public record, or statements he's already made (He already very clearly stated he pays as little tax as possible, he doesn't shy away from this.)? The former is justified by the very nature of someone listening to individuals they hired on their area of expertise, the latter requires a malicious intent to hide information AND for this information to be impossible to access anywhere else or him not admitting to it already. The latter is more of a reach than the former.

" Trump has been lying this whole campaign"

Examples please. And no, being vague is not lying.
#161 - ishotthedeputy (09/29/2016) [-]
Literally during the debate he said he never claimed the Chinese invented the concept of global warming when he clearly tweeted that exact same thing. Politifact has a bunch of other ludicrous examples so I'll just direct you to that.
User avatar
#162 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2016) [-]
You clearly do very little research if you didn't even read the politifact article you're speaking of, although I'd advise against politifact since they have a very clear bias and so I wouldn't consider them an objective source on the matter involving presidential candidates.

He said the involvement of china in global warming was a joke, but he does think global warming is a hoax, which I adamantly disagree with him on. So him saying he never claimed such a thing is true, since the only time the issue was mentioned he made clear it was in joking form.

If this is your strongest example then that's quite sad.
#163 - ishotthedeputy (3 hours ago) [-]
I'm not referencing one article, but his whole page. Here's the link www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Politifact is a very reliable source and is widely regarded as the least biased site out there. Just because they're pointing out his consistent lies doesn't mean they're biased. Actually you thinking there is one is a pretty big indicator that *you're* blindly biased. If you want to go through the "False" and "Pants on Fire" claims and tell me how they're so biased and overlook things, be my guest.
User avatar
#164 - noblexfenrir (1 hour ago) [-]
Sure why not:

-Pant's on fire claims-

""Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever."

Calling this claim a lie is absolutely absurd because it's trying to turn a non-literal statement into an objective one. If I fall down the stairs and say it was "the most pain I've ever felt" am I a complete liar if 20 years ago I did something that I would say hurt more? No because it's reading too much into it. He's speaking of current time, and he's not wrong. Higher unemployment, single motherhood, rates of violence and murder, etc. These are objective issues and he was expressing how dire their current situation is.

"The number of illegal immigrants "could be 3 million. It could be 30 million."

They say zero possibility, I find that hard to believe since assessment of these numbers is vague at best. Direct numbers years ago pointed to 11-12 million, there have been analysts looking at remittance transfers and these could suggest significantly higher numbers one of which was suggested was 30 million. The fact this is pants on fire is idiotic since there are reputable sources for it's claim, yet Hillary makes the claim "After Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, "within 24 hours, Americans lost $100 billion from our 401(k)s."" and it's rated mostly true while admitting it's not a long term problem, I can say during any daily low in the stock market that people have lost record amounts in their 401k's, but I would sound like an idiot for suggesting it means anything. There is no context in verifying the "truth" in these statements.

""Inner-city crime is reaching record levels.""

Rated pants on fire because "A possible uptick doesn't erase 25 years of decline." yet areas like Baltimore, St. Louis, and Milwakee are at the same levels they were in 1990 and various other areas like Chicago, New orleans, and DC are back to 2000-2005 levels. When either 100% or 50% of your decline is rendered null in the last 5 or so years, yeah it fucking does erase the previous years.

"Says the U.S. election system is "rigged.""

With what went on in the Democrat primaries, illegal immigrants and felons casting votes, and a common system where the dead surprisingly rise every 4 years to cast a ballot, I don't understand how this could possible be "pants on fire", half true or even maybe mostly false, but pants on fire is just being blind.

""Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ ""

Lol the reason this is pants on fire is "Phonetic analysis says otherwise.". So it doesn't matter if her proposed tax plan is going to raise taxes on the middle class, because she didn't say it directly from her fucking mouth hole, Trump is therefor blatantly lying. This could have easily been "mostly true" with the reason being: Plan will increase taxes on middle class, but never actually said the words. See simple.

I could keep going but I'm honestly getting angry reading either blatant misrepresentation after misrepresentation or individual comments removed from their context taken at face value. Even conflating the deflation of the housing bubble with the housing crisis to rate it mostly true when Clinton said Trump rooted for the housing crash. There is a massive difference between the two, and if you actually know that difference, her lie becomes exactly that, a lie. and if she willingly did it on purpose, a malicious one.
#175 - Then you're more than free to cross out minority and insert &q…  [+] (1 reply) 09/28/2016 on Trumper Comp56 -2
#176 - opummagnus (09/28/2016) [-]
It would be if I ever mentioned that Trump was doing well with those groups
but I didn't
You're just bringing in irrelevancies to what I said
Man, why are anti-Trump people so lacking in humor
#495 - Cool. Then I guess this only applies to the people I was talki…  [+] (1 reply) 09/28/2016 on Damn that was fast -1
#496 - funpunk (09/28/2016) [-]
Thought I was getting grouped in, carry on.
#320 - You're operating under a huuuuuuuuge assumption that this is a…  [+] (6 replies) 09/28/2016 on Damn that was fast +6
User avatar
#321 - lean (09/28/2016) [-]
What could show up on his taxes that is more damning than, say, donations from saudi Arabia, or Russian donations that coincide with massive shipments of US sanctioned weapons grade Uranium?
#497 - ishotthedeputy (09/28/2016) [-]
I'd love for that to be answered, but he hasn't released them. How can that possibly be a sign that he's withholding information LESS damning than the things you mentioned?
#409 - asftrooper (09/28/2016) [-]
didn't he say that he is following his legal team who keeps telling him "no, don't release it yet." That's the only reason I've heard about it.
User avatar
#426 - lean (09/28/2016) [-]
He says his legal team has advised him to not release his tax info until the IRS audit has been completed.
#427 - asftrooper (09/28/2016) [-]
so there's your reason
User avatar
#443 - lean (09/28/2016) [-]
Start at the top and follow the convo.
I'm not looking for reasons.
#319 - For a group of people whose platform is based on personal resp…  [+] (3 replies) 09/28/2016 on Damn that was fast 0
#450 - funpunk (09/28/2016) [-]
I'm not even a Republican.
#495 - ishotthedeputy (09/28/2016) [-]
Cool. Then I guess this only applies to the people I was talking about then, doesn't it?
#496 - funpunk (09/28/2016) [-]
Thought I was getting grouped in, carry on.