Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Shalamar]

The only thing "false" in there was Snopes "fact checking," as already explained.

She might have got it on sale, is not "fact checking"

She did not string the words "income inequality" together so that means it wasn't about "income inequality"? But she said:



Who ya kidding Snopes Kim Lacapria??

Come on "skeptics" use your noodles.

Skeptics are using their 'noodles'. They were skeptical of the claim, investigated, and found it wanting.

Others seem to have blindly accepted the claim because it suits their biases.

People who do not engage in skeptical thought shouldn't throw stones.

 

[The Big Dog]

Skeptics are using their 'noodles'. They were skeptical of the claim, investigated, and found it wanting.

Others seem to have blindly accepted the claim because it suits their biases.

People who do not engage in skeptical thought shouldn't throw stones.

Uhhh, no, "skeptics" did not. They simply blindly accepted a Snopes article, that upon actual inspection was tissue thin nonsense written by one "Kim Lacapria."

 

[snoop_doxie]

Uhhh, no, "skeptics" did not. They simply blindly accepted a Snopes article, that upon actual inspection was tissue thin nonsense written by one "Kim Lacapria."

Why have you put quotes around the person's name?

Why is the word skeptics put in quotes?

What are you trying to say?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why have you put quotes around the person's name?

Why is the word skeptics put in quotes?

What are you trying to say?

The first one was a quote from the post to which I replying, the second was to set it off from the rest of the sentence.

Seems pretty clear to me

 

[Shalamar]

Uhhh, no, "skeptics" did not. They simply blindly accepted a Snopes article, that upon actual inspection was tissue thin nonsense written by one "Kim Lacapria."

They did research, which showed the claim to be false.

But then, you are blindly accepting the claim simply because it makes Hillary look bad. Fallacy of Argument by Clothing.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Uhhh, no, "skeptics" did not. They simply blindly accepted a Snopes article, that upon actual inspection was tissue thin nonsense written by one "Kim Lacapria."

Bwahaha! You accepted an article that was "reporting" on a New York Post piece that contained no information and reporting on what "some people" were tweeting.

Seriously, Big Dog. Read the link YOU provided. There is no reporting in there. Unless you consider "here's what's trending" to be journalism.

You have been caught out using bad evidence and no critical thinking, whatsoever. We will put it down to a mistake on your part but the simple fact is that you were/are wrong. You reported a strange article which was reporting on reporting and tweeting as though it was fact. Your only argument as to its veracity is "Well, it was CNBC" when CNBC clearly state, "according to the NY Post" and even link to the Post article.

So we shall return now to my original contention. You did no research. You gleefully reported some anti-Hillary nonsense, the source of which turned out to be a Murdoch rag, because...... Well, you tell us.

 

[The Big Dog]

They did research, which showed the claim to be false.

But then, you are blindly accepting the claim simply because it makes Hillary look bad. Fallacy of Argument by Clothing.

No they did research which showed the claims to be true, as already explained.

The jacket did retail for $12,500 and was worn during a speech on "income inequality" including "raising wages and reducing inequality."

Kim lied to you. next time do your own research and don't rely on a poorly written blog post like Kim's.

 

[acbytesla]

we know, Armani, to the tune of $12,500, which she wore while giving a speech on income "inequality"

You spend more time talking about what she wears because that is all you have. Day after day it's the same old nonsense. You hate the pantsuits and now you are complaining about something from Armani. Who gives a ******

When is the last time you talked about what a male candidate wore?

 

[snoop_doxie]

No they did research which showed the claims to be true, as already explained.

The jacket did retail for $12,500 and was worn during a speech on "income inequality" including "raising wages and reducing inequality."

Kim lied to you. next time do your own research and don't rely on a poorly written blog post like Kim's.

You responded to my question about quotation marks around the name,
with

The first one was a quote from the post to which I replying, the second was to set it off from the rest of the sentence.

Seems pretty clear to me

Why isn't the name Kim put in quotes this time?
Writing for Snopes is a blog post now?

 

[Childlike Empress]

... and always remember step 7 of the Hillary purification system.

 

[The Big Dog]

You spend more time talking about what she wears because that is all you have. Day after day it's the same old nonsense. You hate the pantsuits and now you are complaining about something from Armani. Who gives a ******

When is the last time you talked about what a male candidate wore?

well it was an Armani pant suit, I just brought it up because Noahfence asked about who made her clothes.

The fact that she is tone deaf enough to warble about how she was concerned about "wages" and "inequality" while wearing a jacket that cost more than the poverty cut off for a single individual is quite telling.

Next time a male candidate does something so *********** tone deaf and hypocritical I will certainly follow up!

 

[Shalamar]

No they did research which showed the claims to be true, as already explained.

The jacket did retail for $12,500 and was worn during a speech on "income inequality" including "raising wages and reducing inequality."

Kim lied to you. next time do your own research and don't rely on a poorly written blog post like Kim's.

Show the snopes article lied.
It's sourced, and explains that while Hillary did wear the Jacket (who cares?) she didn't wear it where she gave a speech about income inequality.

Looks like your sources are lying to you.

Protip: The definition of Skeptic is NOT: Blindly accepts all conservative view points, and attacks on the opposition.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Next time a male candidate does something so *********** tone deaf and hypocritical I will certainly follow up!

Well, yeah. Sure you will.

Now where could we find a culturally tone deaf male candidate? If only we had someone who made embarrassingly ignorant and clumsy statements on a daily (if not hourly) basis we could actually test the sincerity of this promise.

 

[The Big Dog]

Show the snopes article lied. It's sourced, and explains that while Hillary did wear the Jacket (who cares?) she didn't wear it where she gave a speech about income inequality.

Looks like your sources are lying to you.

Protip: The definition of Skeptic is NOT: Blindly accepts all conservative view points, and attacks on the opposition.

"who cares?" That right there is the solid gold money quote.

as such we are left with the claim that the speech did not address "income inequality" despite the fact that Hillary flat out mentioned ""raising wages and reducing inequality" . hell even Kimmy wrote: "The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," and in a much broader sense."

Kimmy lied to you, don't attack the messenger

 

[Shalamar]

"who cares?" That right there is the solid gold money quote.

as such we are left with the claim that the speech did not address "income inequality" despite the fact that Hillary flat out mentioned ""raising wages and reducing inequality" . hell even Kimmy wrote: "The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," and in a much broader sense."

Kimmy lied to you, don't attack the messenger

No lying is evident.... At least not by 'Kimmy'.

And Solid Gold Money Quote? I really don't care what people of wealth wear. It's their money after all.

And you really should stop digging that hole. Doesn't suit you at all.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Show the snopes article lied.
It's sourced, and explains that while Hillary did wear the Jacket (who cares?) she didn't wear it where she gave a speech about income inequality.

You didn't read the Snopes junk as well, did you. Here is their little dance about the speech:

The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clinton’s New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested:

Going on to cite two paragraphs from the speech which is introduced at the source Snopes links to for the transcript as "In her speech, Clinton explained her plans to break down barriers for all Americans" - and this is what she does including the heartbreaking examples of Maxine, Mikey and Erica who as I've outlined before are certainly not amused.

The Snopes claim that the "rumor" is "mostly false" is complete junk and an example of why Trump IS the lesser evil, because his actions would be closely scrutinized to the last fart, while Hillary Rotten Clinton has the whole establishment media licking her enormous rear end pretending it smells like roses, including sources who have a certain reputation for being not completely partisan.

 

[Shalamar]

You didn't read the Snopes junk as well, did you. Here is their little dance about the speech:




Going on to cite two paragraphs from the article which is introduced at the source Snopes links to for the transcript as "In her speech, Clinton explained her plans to break down barriers for all Americans" - and this is what she does including the heartbreaking examples of Maxine, Mikey and Erica who as I've outlined before are certainly not amused.

The Snopes claim that the "rumor" is "mostly false" is complete junk and an example of why Trump IS the lesser evil, because his actions would be closely scrutinized to the last fart, while Hillary Rotten Clinton has the whole establishment media licking her enormous rear end pretending it smells like roses, including sources who have a certain reputation for being not completely partisan.

Interesting, that your quote of the article doesn't support the claim that Hillary Clinton gave a speech on Income Equality.

Oh, Who is Hillary Rotten Clinton? I know of no such person.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting, that your quote of the article doesn't support the claim that Hillary Clinton gave a speech on Income Equality..

 

[The Big Dog]

They did research, which showed the claim to be false.

But then, you are blindly accepting the claim simply because it makes Hillary look bad. Fallacy of Argument by Clothing.

TBD shows that the claim about the price of the quote was true...

And Solid Gold Money Quote? I really don't care what people of wealth wear. It's their money after all.

Now he doesn't "care." Funny how people stop caring about the claim after it is proven true. Lot of that going around in this thread....

 

[acbytesla]

well it was an Armani pant suit, I just brought it up because Noahfence asked about who made her clothes.

The fact that she is tone deaf enough to warble about how she was concerned about "wages" and "inequality" while wearing a jacket that cost more than the poverty cut off for a single individual is quite telling.

Next time a male candidate does something so *********** tone deaf and hypocritical I will certainly follow up!

That YOU think she is "tone deaf" while supporting the most tone deaf candidate in history is a joke. But then you knew that. You support a candidate who doesn't give a damn about income inequality. What I do know is you make absurd criticisms of trifles about Clinton while ignoring that Trump CHEATED college students and businesses.

The hypocrisy and double standards is awe inspiring.