• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ms piggy likes to pork

Republicans have their own facts, which are better and true-er facts. Any fact checker showing Republicans to be wrong is obviously liberal.

Good lord.



Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Not a republican, and calling yourself an independent fact checker does not make one an independent fact checker
 
Cj8WgO.jpg

That has quite literally nothing to do with what I posted.
 
Neither BC or Trump have been found guilty of rape, but both have been accused (Trump may have raped a 13 year old, if you just want to throw around crap). Trump and BC have great temperament and judgement and each have told me that they have done much worse on the golf course...;)

This entire election is a travesty for America...no real winners here.
 
Not a republican, and calling yourself an independent fact checker does not make one an independent fact checker

Fortunately those biased liberal fact checkers openly provide the data and methodology they use to come to their conclusions. I forget though, no such thing as "facts" in 2016, everything is subjective based on your political affiliation. Hey! You and RJ should form a moderate club!
 
Fortunately those biased liberal fact checkers openly provide the data and methodology they use to come to their conclusions. I forget though, no such thing as "facts" in 2016, everything is subjective based on your political affiliation. Hey! You and RJ should form a moderate club!
Snopes is full of shit when it comes to Hillary.
 
Snopes is full of shit when it comes to Hillary.


That video doesn't debunk anything. He's just pointing out the incompetence of the girl's case, as it that's Hillary's fault. Hillary was a pro-bono legal aid while she was professor at UA Law school, and a local judge asked her to defend a homeless dude accused of rape. She was able to get the homeless guy's case pled down. I've heard this same thing brought up, ignorantly, over and over again as evidence that Hillary is corrupt, or Hillary doesn't love children, and it makes zero sense. I've listened to the audio of the interview with Hillary and she clearly believed the guy was guilty, and that his lie detector results were bullshit.
 
That guy is clearly still living in his parents basement (as displayed with the Spider-Man comic)...do not believe.
 
Here is a very sensible comment from that "debunking" video, maybe the only sensible comment

Denis McDowell 3 months ago
I'm no HRC fan, but a defense attorney's job is to make the prosecution prove its case. If the prosecution couldn't make a strong case, the fault lies with them and not the defense. The accused is not a "child rapist" in the eyes of the law until he is actually convicted based upon the evidence. The constitution guarantees the right to a vigorous defense.
Reply
 
Here is a very sensible comment from that "debunking" video, maybe the only sensible comment

Denis McDowell 3 months ago
I'm no HRC fan, but a defense attorney's job is to make the prosecution prove its case. If the prosecution couldn't make a strong case, the fault lies with them and not the defense. The accused is not a "child rapist" in the eyes of the law until he is actually convicted based upon the evidence. The constitution guarantees the right to a vigorous defense.
Reply

#hillshill
#illuminati
#lawandorder
 
That video doesn't debunk anything. He's just pointing out the incompetence of the girl's case, as it that's Hillary's fault. Hillary was a pro-bono legal aid while she was professor at UA Law school, and a local judge asked her to defend a homeless dude accused of rape. She was able to get the homeless guy's case pled down. I've heard this same thing brought up, ignorantly, over and over again as evidence that Hillary is corrupt, or Hillary doesn't love children, and it makes zero sense. I've listened to the audio of the interview with Hillary and she clearly believed the guy was guilty, and that his lie detector results were bullshit.

What you fail to mention is that she also clearly laughs when talking about the case.
 
Here is a very sensible comment from that "debunking" video, maybe the only sensible comment

Denis McDowell 3 months ago
I'm no HRC fan, but a defense attorney's job is to make the prosecution prove its case. If the prosecution couldn't make a strong case, the fault lies with them and not the defense. The accused is not a "child rapist" in the eyes of the law until he is actually convicted based upon the evidence. The constitution guarantees the right to a vigorous defense.
Reply

The point is that she callously laughs when discussing a case where a child was raped and she got the guy off. Most people aren't bitching about her doing her job- it's her laughter that many find unsettling. And apparently you don't. Because I guess child rape is just hilarious.
 
She shouldn't be joyful that she prevented an innocent man from being wrongfully convicted? Do you believe in the constitution or not?
 
She shouldn't be joyful that she prevented an innocent man from being wrongfully convicted? Do you believe in the constitution or not?
Dumbass, she let's it be known she clearly knows the guy was guilty. That was the point of her saying her faith in polygraphs were forever destroyed.
 
What you fail to mention is that she also clearly laughs when talking about the case.

The point is that she callously laughs when discussing a case where a child was raped and she got the guy off. Most people aren't bitching about her doing her job- it's her laughter that many find unsettling. And apparently you don't. Because I guess child rape is just hilarious.

Oh, is that the point of the entire effort? To subjectively determine why she was laughing by bringing up the bloody panties? Or are you just moving the goalposts to defend a shitty youtube video? Thats a lot of fucking effort to put forth an weak assumption about the motivations of a 20 year old laugh.
 
Oh, is that the point of the entire effort? To subjectively determine why she was laughing by bringing up the bloody panties? Or are you just moving the goalposts to defend a shitty youtube video? Thats a lot of fucking effort to put forth an weak assumption about the motivations of a 20 year old laugh.
She repeatedly laughs during the video- not just once. Also gotta love the phony southern accent she adopts.
 
I know I certainly have lost all faith in Snopes after watching that video! What a smoking gun!
 
Back
Top