• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
boomerang said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grooveriding said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ivwshane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Zaap said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Zaap said:
Anyone going to cite and link to *facts* disproving Morris?
Click to expand...

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 said:
Attack the source fallacy:

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

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."
Click to expand...

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 said:
Wow, you are dumb. That's not what you said.
Click to expand...

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.
 
madoka said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zaap said:
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?
Click to expand...

How many things do I need to accuse you of before a small fraction of them have to be true?
 
thraashman said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
dainthomas said:
How many things do I need to accuse you of before a small fraction of them have to be true?
Click to expand...

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.
 
madoka said:
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.
Click to expand...



I find it odd that you'd reply with such a comment when I was clearly referring to boomerang. Hmm... Another alt account?
 
Last edited:
Zaap said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
thraashman said:
*spits all over his monitor*
Click to expand...
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.
 
Zaap said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Keep on keepin' on, champ.
 
nickqt said:
Proving negatives is always a winning argument. If you're a delusional conservative.

Keep on keepin' on, champ.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top