Clinton insider and former advisor tells the truth about Bill's speech

[fskimospy]

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger

Snopes was discredited ages ago. The article above is a recent one. Using clearly biased sources reflects poorly on you.

Says the person using the Daily Caller as a source. Lol.

Probably should have thought that one through better, no? Hahaha.

 

[thraashman]

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger

Snopes was discredited ages ago. The article above is a recent one. Using clearly biased sources reflects poorly on you.

Snopes has never been discredited, it's just that conservatives are proven wrong so incredibly often (because facts are to conservatives like garlic is to vampires). So conservatives attack the fact checking site that consistently cites facts and sources proving that they're lying.
Here's Snopes response to your article. http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/19/fa...r-tantrum-about-being-debunked-by-snopes-com/
Unlike the Daily Caller article, this one uses proof and facts.

 

[IBMer]

Is he trying to sell a book? Thought so.

 

[brycejones]

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger

Snopes was discredited ages ago. The article above is a recent one. Using clearly biased sources reflects poorly on you.

Oh you are being serious.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh you are being serious.

Don't worry, he likes to dump and run. He'll post a little "gem" and then run away so he doesn't have to face any criticism or facts contradicting his views. He's built quite the fortified bubble.

 

[hal2kilo]

Is he trying to sell a book? Thought so.

Who cares about what the guy with the toe sucking fetish says anyway. He had a falling out with Clintons and became a pundit on Fox for awhile. Truly, a credible source.

 

[madoka]

Fucks sake. Rub a couple brain cells together and assess where you get your information from. Random nuts on youtube, blatantly biased websites passing off blog posts as 'news'.. Great sources.

If you're going to comment, at least do the courtesy of clicking the link. Obviously he's not some "random nut" but was his friend and advisor for a number of years. But I guess the random nut jobs on AT know the Clintons better right?

 

[madoka]

Don't worry, he likes to dump and run. He'll post a little "gem" and then run away so he doesn't have to face any criticism or facts contradicting his views. He's built quite the fortified bubble.

Who the fuck are you?

You're the type of jackass that makes the P&N such a toilet. You can't argue with facts, so you just make up personal attacks.

 

[madoka]

Dump and run by the OP?

It's only been a couple of days. I'm sorry I have a life and spent the weekend living it, instead of trolling P&N. I feel sad for you.

 

[fskimospy]

If you're going to comment, at least do the courtesy of clicking the link. Obviously he's not some "random nut" but was his friend and advisor for a number of years. But I guess the random nut jobs on AT know the Clintons better right?

Do you think it is possible that someone who the Clinton's fired almost two decades ago who has spent the time since then working as a right wing pundit might not be a super credible source?

 

[madoka]

Fine, so let's say Dick Morris is just 'some random nut'. That's what's been alluded to.

Never mind he worked for the Clintons for years, both in Arkansas and in D.C.

What does he know, vs. a bunch of random leftoon dipshits on a message board?

You can't reason with people who are repulsed by facts that contradict their world view.

Anyone going to cite and link to *facts* disproving Morris?

Morris pointed out that Hillary did jack shit as a senator.

Here's fellow senator Diane Feinstein realizing that she can't come up with a single accomplishment that Hillary managed in EIGHT years as a senator:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/31/feinstein-googles-hillarys-senate-accomplishments/

 

[madoka]

Do you think it is possible that someone who the Clinton's fired almost two decades ago who has spent the time since then working as a right wing pundit might not be a super credible source?

Attack the source fallacy:

http://www.springhole.net/logical-fallacies/attack-the-source.htm

 

[fskimospy]

Attack the source fallacy:

http://www.springhole.net/logical-fallacies/attack-the-source.htm

From your own link:

Now, it would not be an attack against the source to say, "I am going to remain skeptical of the existence of yellow apples until I can find a more reliable source, as Wikipedia is often known to be inaccurate."

Dick Morris has such a long history of saying factually challenged things about the Clintons and has so frequently made hilariously wrong analyses that Andrew Sullivan actually named an award for being wrong after him.

Nice self ownage, haha.

 

[madoka]

From your own link:

Now, it would not be an attack against the source to say, "I am going to remain skeptical of the existence of yellow apples until I can find a more reliable source, as Wikipedia is often known to be inaccurate."

Wow, you are dumb. That's not what you said.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, you are dumb. That's not what you said.

Yes it is, almost verbatim.

I questioned if Dick Morris was a credible source considering his history. (FYI: he is not)

You owned yourself with your own link, which backs me up. It is perfectly appropriate to question information that is provided by a non-credible source and it is not an ad-hominem attack. Make sure if you're going to accuse something of being a logical fallacy that it...well... is.

 

[brycejones]

It's only been a couple of days. I'm sorry I have a life and spent the weekend living it, instead of trolling P&N. I feel sad for you.

Lol says the guy watching questionable you tube videos and accepting them as facts. Enjoy being an easily manipulated moron. I don't feel sad for you because you have chosen to be willfully ignorant.

 

[dainthomas]

But pretend Hillary ISN'T corrupt? If only a small fraction of the shit she's been accused of is true she'd still be corrupt as hell! If it's anything close to half of it, as said, it's only her connections that have kept her out of jail- let alone elected to the highest office in the land.

Anyone going to cite and link to *facts* disproving Morris?

How many things do I need to accuse you of before a small fraction of them have to be true?

 

[Zaap]

At about a minute and a half he claims that Hillary Clinton was fired from the Watergate impeachment committee. Hillary Clinton was not fired. In fact the claim she was fired was a lie spread by Jerry Zeifman who claimed he fired her despite the fact he was never in a position of authority to have fired her. And before a falling out with the Clintons in the 90's has written about how she was on the committee until it was officially disbanded. That's the main one I knew off the top of my head, I'm sure I could go through and use simple Google to find falsehoods in other things he said.

In fact here's info on how the claim about the child rapist case in 1975 is false

Well that's two things out of everything he said. You at least gave it the old college try.

I should point out, I don't give a flip about Morris, don't know much of anything about him, and the fact that he worked with the Clintons for years is actually a big negative in my view, because I think the Clintons surround themselves with dirtbags. However, I still don't see where he's in any less position to know about Hillary's past than a bunch of random fools on a message board who just want to whitewash anything negative about their D hero.

The Watergate thing- true, she wasn't fired. But it's telling what her boss had to say about her- basically that she was a lying, theiving, coniving dirtbag, who was willing to use the Constitution like so much toilet paper. Probably the only reason she wasn't fired, was Nixon resigned and there was no more purpose for the impeachment comittee. So I guess Hillary supporters can claim a technicality on that one, but how she's described by her boss is TELLING. Let's just sweet that under the rug, shall we?

The rapist case: the only 'rebuttal' is just saying she didn't purposefully take on the case. I don't remember, but did Morris make that claim?

Did she make up a riduclous 'Blame the Victim' defence? YES.
Did she later laugh in an interview, in effect saying she knew the defendant was guilty. YES.

So that's two kinda-sorta addressed. How about some of the ones that are real doucebaggy- the bribe and kickback allegations and such, using her political clout to enrich herself and Bill. Any FACTS disproving any of that?

 

[guachi]

She laughed in the interview about how awful polygraphs are. They are worth laughing at. I have to take them for my job and I don't take them seriously. They are joke to be laughed at.

 

[Zaap]

How many things do I need to accuse you of before a small fraction of them have to be true?

You can accuse me of taking bribes and kickbacks all you want. You can accuse me of failing bar exams, misusing political power, being an ineffective senator, or inept Sec. of State, doing shady things that let documents fall into enemy hands, lying about being under sniper fire, etc.

Have at it.

Also, last I checked, I wasn't in any position to be elected president.

 

[ivwshane]

Who the fuck are you?

You're the type of jackass that makes the P&N such a toilet. You can't argue with facts, so you just make up personal attacks.

I find it odd that you'd reply with such a comment when I was clearly referring to boomerang. Hmm... Another alt account?

 

[thraashman]

Well that's two things out of everything he said. You at least gave it the old college try.

I should point out, I don't give a flip about Morris, don't know much of anything about him, and the fact that he worked with the Clintons for years is actually a big negative in my view, because I think the Clintons surround themselves with dirtbags. However, I still don't see where he's in any less position to know about Hillary's past than a bunch of random fools on a message board who just want to whitewash anything negative about their D hero.

The Watergate thing- true, she wasn't fired. But it's telling what her boss had to say about her- basically that she was a lying, theiving, coniving dirtbag, who was willing to use the Constitution like so much toilet paper. Probably the only reason she wasn't fired, was Nixon resigned and there was no more purpose for the impeachment comittee. So I guess Hillary supporters can claim a technicality on that one, but how she's described by her boss is TELLING. Let's just sweet that under the rug, shall we?

The rapist case: the only 'rebuttal' is just saying she didn't purposefully take on the case. I don't remember, but did Morris make that claim?

Did she make up a riduclous 'Blame the Victim' defence? YES.
Did she later laugh in an interview, in effect saying she knew the defendant was guilty. YES.

So that's two kinda-sorta addressed. How about some of the ones that are real doucebaggy- the bribe and kickback allegations and such, using her political clout to enrich herself and Bill. Any FACTS disproving any of that?

Your exact words were "*USING FACTS* dispute a SINGLE FUCKING THING", I used facts to dispute TWO FUCKING THINGS. Your choice to move the goalposts is unrelated to what I did. I didn't choose to disprove EVERYTHING because that wasn't your stated request. I could probably rip apart a dozen or more things he said. The rest of your post is really just bullshit that I'm honestly too lazy to argue with someone as stupid as you about.

 

[Zaap]

*spits all over his monitor*

Geeze. Clean that mess up and calm down, nitwit. I gave you credit for the old college try, there wasn't some prize or anything.

I also pointed out where you didn't actually dispute things Morris said except for her not actually being fired. You didn't dispute what he said about the rape case.

Now.. gonna barf on your keyboard next, moonbat or can you (or any leftloon) address the allegations like bribes and kickbacks? And yes. Using FACTS and sources.

 

[nickqt]

Geeze. Clean that mess up and calm down, nitwit. I gave you credit for the old college try, there wasn't some prize or anything.

I also pointed out where you didn't actually dispute things Morris said except for her not actually being fired. You didn't dispute what he said about the rape case.

Now.. gonna barf on your keyboard next, moonbat or can you (or any leftloon) address the allegations like bribes and kickbacks? And yes. Using FACTS and sources.

Proving negatives is always a winning argument. If you're a delusional conservative.

Keep on keepin' on, champ.

 

[thraashman]

Proving negatives is always a winning argument. If you're a delusional conservative.

Keep on keepin' on, champ.

I appreciate him proving WHY I don't feel like continuing to argue with someone at his level of stupidity. What's the saying about playing chess against a pigeon?