What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Beats By Dr. Dre view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers make some noise about Dr. Dre's Beats noise-canceling headphones.
186 Comments
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -13/+232How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar?
(from WikiAnswers)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_some ...
Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.
Some characteristics:
1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.
3. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs).
4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment.
5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior.
6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).
Here are some ways to tell someone is a pathological liar contributed by another WikiAnswers Contributor:
- They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying "I brushed my teeth today," when they didn't.
- They add exaggerations to every sentence.
- They change their story all the time.
- They act very defensively when you question their statements.
- They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't.
Here's an alternate "checklist":
- Lies when it is very easy to tell the truth.
- Lies to get sympathy, to look beter, to save their butt, etc.
- Fools people at first but once they get to know him, no one believes anything they ever say.
- May have a personality disorder.
- Extremely manipulative.
- Has been caught in lies repeatedly.
- Never fesses up to the lies.
- Is a legend in their own mind. - fallen1004, on 05/27/2008, -11/+75HRC twists facts and logic until she convinces herself and others that her fantasy is reality.
It is very sad that there are people who still support her. Then again, enough idiots voted for G.W. Bush twice to give him two terms. Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves. - EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -6/+63Do we want another President who invents/twists facts and logic to suit their fantasy of reality? Do we want another President who lies about everything and then threatens to destroy other countries? Do we want another President who blames everyone else for their own failings? Do we want another President who has a "you're either with us or against us" attitude?
- aldenhg, on 05/27/2008, -1/+55What I don't understand is why anyone bothers lying these days when they're in the public eye. With Youtube sitting there and waiting to pull your ***** into the light, wouldn't it be easier to tell the truth?
- R0l0, on 05/27/2008, -17/+61I dislike her and all, but this is just nitpicking. She said "wrap up" the nomination.
- DiggLive, on 05/27/2008, -13/+48It's a semantics issue. People could say Obama wrapped up the nomination a while ago, but he still didn't officially achieve it yet. She's talking about when Bill reached the amount needed for nomination, not when it started to look like he would be the nominee.
- AriaStar, on 05/27/2008, -10/+36At this point Hillary telling the TRUTH would be news. She's more reliable than just about anything. Whatever she says, you know the opposite is true.
- nascentia, on 05/27/2008, -12/+35I bet she was under sniper fire when she made those remarks.
- allengeer, on 05/27/2008, -6/+27Much like Colbert, Clinton has no use for facts because she FEELS what is right. Truth comes from your gut, not from facts.
- BishkekBuddy, on 05/27/2008, -2/+17"HRC twists facts and logic until she convinces herself and others that her fantasy is reality. " .... doesn't that sound JUST like Dubya?! Say something loud and long enough and people start thinking it's fact... but we've caught on to these jerks... Hillary - go home.
- ArchieAndrews, on 05/27/2008, -6/+21Do we seriously not have enough bad news about Hillary that we have to start this type of spin *****? The fact is that Bill DIDN'T wrap up the nomination until June, as she said. Fact. He may have been in an unbeatable position in April and likely to win but he didn't actually get the delegates until June. Jesus people...
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -15/+30Holy *****....this is the most ridiculous submission I've seen on Digg in quite some time, and that's saying a lot.
If Bill Clinton did not have the necessary amount of delegates to win the nomination until after the California primary in June, I don't understand how he "won" the nomination in April. Maybe we should just base our election results on projections from now on. That way we could just decide the presidential election around 3 pm EST and the western US wouldn't even need to bother voting. - haylel, on 05/27/2008, -0/+10That's not the definition of Retardation...
- CannedMango, on 05/27/2008, -0/+9The problem is that while to us it seems that just about everyone is using the internet and catching these people red-handed, the majority of people (and thus voters) still do not use the internet in this manner. They email, they watch videos people send them, do some shopping, read gossip news and maybe play some online flash game, but that's about it. Most people don't even know sites like Digg and Reddit exist. It will be 20-30 years before our generation takes over the mainstream and truly wins back this democracy.
The movement is starting now, but politicians can still get away with a lot because the ignorant majority lets them. - chimx, on 05/27/2008, -4/+12We're still talking about Hillary Clinton?
- deanjarvis, on 05/27/2008, -2/+10Well, then you're not looking hard enough.
- chaosium, on 05/27/2008, -0/+8"What I don't understand is why anyone bothers lying these days when they're in the public eye."
The media for the most part doesn't give a *****, and by that extension neither does the public. - insomniac8400, on 05/27/2008, -4/+12Damn that's eerie. If you replace bill clinton in that video with brack obama, his statement is exactly what he is saying today almost word for word in the exact same tone.
- darladoon, on 05/27/2008, -4/+11just because tim russert believed that bill clinton had the nomination in april does not dispute hillary's claim to the contrary (that he had the nomination in july).
it would help if the digger actually posted the facts, and not russert's opinion.
and this is coming from one who doesn't support clinton. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -10/+17Shhh, facts have no place in the discussion when bashing Hillary.
- mytealjacket, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7No =P
- deanjarvis, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9Actually they do, but they are all against her.
- pintomp3, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7you are right. we found those wmds and we were greeted as liberators.
- rspeed, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9Exactly. I don't support Clinton, but this is ***** ridiculous. Everyone should bury this.
- chrisvanhornnnn, on 05/27/2008, -14/+20***** CANDIDATE SUCKS!
WE GET IT ALREADY DIGG! - ModernChem, on 05/27/2008, -6/+12She is a chronic liar, but I do enjoy her outlandish excuses
- Handcannons, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6No, we don't want another Clinton.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5"It's obvious that people on digg are younger that 30 or 35 otherwise things like this would never get posted"
You're an agest. Maybe you have a point about this post, but it has nothing to do with people being under some magical age of wisdom. I've heard people in their 30s spout just as much misinformed nonsense as those in their 20s and those in their 40s are no better. Most people under 20 get their information from those older people so they are all equally likely to be misinformed and uninitiated.
Maybe Digg is a hotbed of leftist bias, but it has very little to do with the age of the posters. - MixMastaKooz, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5Ok...wait... a) Washington Times = Dubious source. b) Your and your source's analysis is and was very superficial. I don't think his situation was a tenuous as you assert. The "mistress" attack never stuck because everyone knew that the Republican nominee, Bush Sr., had a mistress at some point in the past. So this issue was basically a push. c) You must also remember that the first primary in 1992 was in early to mid February. If Russert was saying that Clinton had this thing wrapped up in late April, that's like someone saying Obama had everything wrapped up in March the day after Super Tuesday 2 (after Ohio and Texas). If you remember, even though Obama still looked good after ST2, no pundit dared make such a emphatic declaration for Obama as Russert did in 1992. To take this time shift a little further: Clinching the nomination in June for Clinton in 1992 (finally gaining all required delegates) is like saying Obama clinched the nomination in early May of 2008. We both know, that Obama hasn't mathematically clinched yet. So yes, Hillary is definitely exaggerating to make herself look better, and it's insulting to any rational person.
- u8eR, on 05/27/2008, -2/+7Clinton had it clinched well before June, as Russert explains in this video. But Hillary Clinton also likes to mention Robert Kennedy, as we know, for not having been shot until June. What she doesn't tell you is that he only entered the race a few weeks before being shot. So using either Bill or Kennedy as examples is incorrect and obviously not a very strong argument to continue in this race.
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5And what's so stupid is that these diggers that agree with this POS are too young to remember the big Jennifer flowers scandal that almost derailed Bill in the 1992 primaries !
Young retarded diggers show ignorance once again.
Please PLEASE look things up, ... can I say please again? This is embarassing. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4"What if Bill was assassinated on the campaign trail?"
Well gee, what if he was assassinated AFTER june but BEFORE the convention, *****? How would the outcome have been any different from if he was assassinated in April? According to your polish logic, he would still have gotten the nomination even if he were assassinated after the California primary, because by that point he would have already "wrapped up" the nomination. Do you have any idea how retarded you sound?
God you are a major *****. Please keep embarassing yourself. This is too much fun. - GoKings, on 05/27/2008, -3/+7Obama hasn't technically wrapped up the nomination either, despite him being in the same position Russert describing Clinton as having in 1992. What's the big deal here?
- soccerman90, on 05/27/2008, -3/+7The reason he won in April because he mathematically clinched it. This means that Bill's lead was so big that there were not enough delegates left for his opponent to overcome Bill's lead. Even if his opponent won 100% of the delegates for the rest of the race, it would still not be enough. They state this in the video
- bluevillage, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Wish I could dig this multiple times. Hillary has NO credibility. How could we listen to her talking about possible military action or anything else without wondering whether she was telling the truth? Between her lying and her rigidity and her tough talk, she's no different than George W. Bush.
- B3000, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3"...'less you wanna go ritzy, then you got The Apple Tree"
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4lol, are you one of these demented retards who thinks obama didn't have a lock on the nomination after February 19? Are you really going to adopt the intellectually shameful position that Jerry Brown had a shot at stealing the nomination in April '92?
You are an assclown, "PolishLogic." Your desperate attempts to rationalize and defend Hillary Clinton's shallow semantic flounderings are duly noted. - Bobbister, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Thanks. Very informative read. Yet, isn't there a slight difference, however subtle, between those liars and HRC? Those liars are lying because they're insecure, while HRC may or may not be insecure, but she's lying to get hold of (one of) the most powerful political positions of humankind? So rather than insecure, I'd say she's more dishonest, power-hungry, and immoral. "Psychopath" maybe?
- dronkmunk, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4***** THE HILARIAA
- Webcatcher, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Semantics, right or wrong!?!?
The issue is that Bill was out ahead in number of delegates, and needed more delegates to wrap it up (before super delegates and convention). He did wrap it up in June. The problem is that Hillary is way behind, and Obama out in front. So her argument for continuing is upside-down. She has no chance of "wrapping it up". By her logic, Bill should have given up the race because he was ahead. Makes no sense either way. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Sadly, as is the case with deanjarvis, some people don't understand how the nomination process works in this country. Yet, they'll still gladly argue about it.
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6Right. Technically "my husband did not wrap up the nomination until June" doesn't actually mean "my husband didn't have a lock on the nomination until June," because of course he had a lock on the nomination since April.
Similarly "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" only referred to the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq, because in reality Bush was fully anticipating a war that would stretch on for 7-10 years, cost over a trillion dollars, force his SecDef to resign, and eventually cause the Republican party to suffer massive electoral defeats throughout the nation.
This lesson in ex post CYA word games brought to you by the ever so appropriately named "PolishLogic." - dronkmunk, on 05/27/2008, -3/+5***** THE HILARIAA
- hmunkey, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Bill actually did a pretty decent job at being the president. Too bad he ruined his legacy with his wife.
- CBRoberts, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2And as we all know, Tim Russert is the final authority on when a Democratic primary is over.
The relevant question, it seems to me, is not what Tim Russert thought, but when Jerry Brown suspended his campaign. I don't think he ever gave up, and fought all the way to the convention.
(FYI: I'm a big Obama supporter) - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3"If no one can beat you... then you've won."
Unfortunately for you, this doesn't work in the Democratic primaries. Read up on the democratic primary process. More importantly read up on super delegates, and why they were created in the first place. They are there to offset the will of the democratic party voters if they do vote for an "unelectable" candidate in the primaries.
Hillary is grasping at straws, I'm merely making a statement of fact about Hillary's comments and how they are not a lie, as this story is claiming they are. Learn the difference. - Ne007, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2It's just not as easy for politicians to get away with lies anymore. With the internet the past isn't as easy to bury.
I think this effect especially caught the Bush administration off guard since they were the first to see the increase in bandwidth and high speed access. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Yeah, things like "I don't take money from lobbyists"
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Pleast keep up this type of post!!! EVERY TIME this sentiment is expressed, it makes it less likely that some woman who reads it will vote for Obama, so please continue!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
