Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Shalamar]

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



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....

Your dishonesty is.. amusing. Bearing false witness, are we?

I stated, very very clearly, That I do not care what people of wealth wear. It's their money, they can buy and wear rags, or Armani suits for all I care. The Value of the suit is not in question. But it is clear that she did not wear it while giving a speech on 'Income Inequality'.

I would ask for an apology, since you have insulted me, but I know you are incapable of giving one.

 

[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.

Your dishonesty is.. amusing. Bearing false witness, are we?

I stated, very very clearly, That I do not care what people of wealth wear. It's their money, they can buy and wear rags, or Armani suits for all I care. The Value of the suit is not in question. But it is clear that she did not wear it while giving a speech on 'Income Inequality'.

I would ask for an apology, since you have insulted me, but I know you are incapable of giving one.

uh huh.

Curious that you did not draw the distinction on what Snopes found to wanting until AFTER I proved Snopes was wrong.

Curious indeed

"Snopes showed the claims were false"
TBD Shows snopes was completely wrong
"I don't care!"

'k

 

[Shalamar]

uh huh.

Curious that you did not draw the distinction on what Snopes found to wanting until AFTER I proved Snopes was wrong.

You did no such thing. At all.

And I said that I did not care what she was wearing. You are being blatantly dishonest.

Curious indeed

Curious indeed. Why are you lying?

"Snopes showed the claims were false"
TBD Shows snopes was completely wrong
"I don't care!"

'k

As I said, I don't care what Hillary Clinton was wearing. I NEVER disputed the fact that she wore Armani. Again, I don't care WHAT she wore for her speech. However, that was not a speech on Income inequality.

 

[The Big Dog]

I NEVER disputed the fact that she wore Armani. Again, I don't care WHAT she wore for her speech. However, that was not a speech on Income inequality.

Revisionist history is revisionist...

yes the speech covered income inequality.

 

[Shalamar]

Revisionist history is revisionist...

yes the speech covered income inequality.

Ahhh! You're revising now? It 'Covered' income quality for a paragraph or two, but the speech wasn't about income equality?

I don't get it though. What about this Makes Hillary Clinton so evil? I mean, It's not like she took in millions of donations, then opened up a hospice while denying the sick poor even the simple basics of pain meds.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ahhh! You're revising now? It 'Covered' income quality for a paragraph or two, but the speech wasn't about income equality?

are you pulling my leg?

Seriously, am I getting Poe'd or something?

 

[Shalamar]

are you pulling my leg?

Seriously, am I getting Poe'd or something?

I keep wondering the same thing. You can't possibly be serious.

 

[The Big Dog]

I keep wondering the same thing. You can't possibly be serious.

Here is what you wrote:

"It 'Covered' income quality for a paragraph or two, but the speech wasn't about income equality?"

How can it have "covered" income inequality and not be about income inequality????

 

[Shalamar]

Here is what you wrote:

"It 'Covered' income quality for a paragraph or two, but the speech wasn't about income equality?"

How can it have "covered" income inequality and not be about income inequality????

Are you unaware that a speech can have multiple talking points about differing topics?

Just because she may have mentioned income inequality, does not mean that the speech was ABOUT income inequality.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you unaware that a speech can have multiple talking points about differing topics?

.

and one of the topics that the speech was "about" was income inequality.

 

[Shalamar]

and one of the topics that the speech was "about" was income equality.

It was her New York Primary Victory Speech.

It was not 'About' income inequality. Such is where the dishonesty lies.

Have fun, feel free to gnaw on that bone.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was her New York Primary Victory Speech.

It was not 'About' income inequality. Such is where the dishonesty lies.

Have fun, feel free to gnaw on that bone.

wow, just wow

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
Plague, whether Trump does something or not, or whether I comment on Trump or not does not change the fact that Hillary wore a $12,500 Armani jacket while giving a speech on income inequality.<>

<>
3. she wore it while spewing these platitudes about income inequality:<>

Revisionist history is revisionist...

yes the speech covered income inequality.

Revisionist history is revisionist...

 

[varwoche]

It was her New York Primary Victory Speech.

It was not 'About' income inequality. Such is where the dishonesty lies.

Have fun, feel free to gnaw on that bone.

SO, using TBD logic (such that it is), Hillary should wear a basic shmata anytime she mentions the word income.

OH DEAR!

 

[NoahFence]

wow, just wow

You understand the rest of us can read all this, yes?

 

[NoahFence]

and one of the topics that the speech was "about" was income inequality.

Rule of.....

So it'd be fine with you if she paused in the middle of the speech, went out back and put on jeans and a t-shirt and then continued into her inequality portion?

 

[The Big Dog]

You understand the rest of us can read all this, yes?

Yeah, I guess I don't have to point out how ridiculous it is, how a speech on income inequality isn't about income inequality.

Seriously I know I should let the ridiculousness shine out on its own, but I am just amazed how silly the arguments from Shillaries really get.

 

[The Big Dog]

Rule of.....

So it'd be fine with you if she paused in the middle of the speech, went out back and put on jeans and a t-shirt and then continued into her inequality portion?

I would be "fine" if she wasn't always such a phony baloney neo-corporatist whore all the time.

Wear the 12,500 suit, whore yourself out to Goldman Sachs, just don't get up there and piss on our heads and tell us it is raining.

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah, I guess I don't have to point out how ridiculous it is, how a speech on income inequality isn't about income inequality.

It's already been explained to you that it wasn't a speech on income equality. Do you forget how to English?

 

[The Big Dog]

It's already been explained to you that it wasn't a speech on income equality. Do you forget how to English?

Hahahaha!

You are actually kidding at this point, right?

You are right, the speech was on income INequality.

Well played.