• 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

BobStackFan4Life said:
Caught you shilling with little to no understanding of what you were shilling about. It happens.
Click to expand...

Good try, but no such luck. I know more about the practice of law that you. Justice was served. I'd love to think this is not related to the color of the defendant's skin, but since you generally hate minorities, I'm worried that is the reason you are so upset.
 
"I could care less if she has a Vagina."

We know you don't man.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Unethical Website Of The Month: Bye-Bye Snopes…You’re Dead To Me Now [UPDATED]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/
Click to expand...

Realize that posting in big red letters is not going to keep people from reading your shitty sources. Here are the real groundbreaking objective points from your alternative fact checker:

- That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case. So you disagree, and?

- Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary “did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.'” She pleaded that her client was not guilty, meaning that she argued in court that he didn’t rape the victim. Hillary claimed that her client was not guilty of rape while the victim was saying he raped her. Hillary defended her client, who chose to plead "not guilty". I'm pretty sure that's what defense lawyers do. Wait. What are we talking about again?

- Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable. So Hillary was just doing her job, but snopes was "spinning" for using a neutral interpretation of events? Well now I'm REALLY convinced.
 
DeaconSig said:
She shouldn't be joyful that she prevented an innocent man from being wrongfully convicted? Do you believe in the constitution or not?
Click to expand...

BobStackFan4Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

DeaconSig said:
nope.
Click to expand...

If you listen to the tape, one of the things she laughs about is that he passed a polygraph, which she says forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs. Do you think she'd say that if she thought he was an innocent man? And again, it's her repeated laughing that most people seem to have a problem with, not the fact she was doing her job.
 
DeaconSig said:
She shouldn't be joyful that she prevented an innocent man from being wrongfully convicted? Do you believe in the constitution or not?
Click to expand...

BobStackFan4Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

myDeaconmyhand said:
Realize that posting in big red letters is not going to keep people from reading your shitty sources. Here are the real groundbreaking objective points from your alternative fact checker:

- That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case. So you disagree, and?

- Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary “did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.'” She pleaded that her client was not guilty, meaning that she argued in court that he didn’t rape the victim. Hillary claimed that her client was not guilty of rape while the victim was saying he raped her. Hillary defended her client, who chose to plead "not guilty". I'm pretty sure that's what defense lawyers do. Wait. What are we talking about again?

- Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable. So Hillary was just doing her job, but snopes was "spinning" for using a neutral interpretation of events? Well now I'm REALLY convinced.
Click to expand...

Please, the Snopes article is anything but neutral and the author, who has written a number of controversial articles/propaganda pieces defending Hillary, immigration, etc puts her own spin on things. But like I've said, the truth doesn't matter to Clinton voters, even when they can go listen to the tape themselves.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Please, the Snopes article is anything but neutral and the author, who has written a number of controversial articles/propaganda pieces defending Hillary, immigration, etc puts her own spin on things. But like I've said, the truth doesn't matter to Clinton voters, even when they can go listen to the tape themselves.
Click to expand...
You have two arguments, that Hillary's laugh was a celebration, and that snopes isn't credible. You haven't presented any evidence to prove either of your arguments. The onus is not on me, Hillary, or Snopes to disprove any of your claims.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You have two arguments, that Hillary's laugh was a celebration, and that snopes isn't credible. You haven't presented any evidence to prove either of your arguments. The onus is not on me, Hillary, or Snopes to disprove any of your claims.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I felt her laugh was callous and inappropriate, not a celebration. You have consistently misrepresented the critiques of Snopes- either deliberately or because you're incapable of understanding them. There is no onus on me to prove anything to someone who is so willfully ignorant.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I felt her laugh was callous and inappropriate, not a celebration. You have consistently misrepresented the critiques of Snopes- either deliberately or because you're incapable of understanding them. There is no onus on me to prove anything to someone who is so willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

You are free to be as suspicious and doubtful of snopes as you want, but if you want to spread that distrust you are going to have to be convincing. I have already responded to both your sourced attempts. I am unconvinced, let's move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
myDeaconmyhand said:
You are free to be as suspicious and doubtful of snopes as you want, but if you want to spread that distrust you are going to have to be convincing. I have already responded to both your sourced attempts. I am unconvinced, let's move on.
Click to expand...

I have already moved on. I have more important things to be OUTRAGED about.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You are free to be as suspicious and doubtful of snopes as you want, but if you want to spread that distrust you are going to have to be convincing. I have already responded to both your sourced attempts. I am unconvinced, let's move on.
Click to expand...

By all means feel free to link Breitbart as a source of journalistic integrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top