• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
Bwahaha! ".... according to the New York Post."

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/
Click to expand...


What a load of junk. So the Armani jacket was reduced in price after Killary wore it, and maybe she didn't pay for it at all, and the speech she gave about poor Maxine and Mikey and Erica wasn't about "income inequality" because those exact words didn't appear and Snopes decided that only two paragraphs were relevant - I'm sure Maxine and Mikey and Erica are not amused.

Seriously, what a laughable "fact check".
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Bwahaha! ".... according to the New York Post."

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/
Click to expand...

did you read the Snopes article, FMW? I mean really read it?

It is filled with spin and bald speculation.

They actually confirm that 1. the jacket was priced at $12,500
2. it was an Armani jacket
3. she wore it while spewing these platitudes about income inequality:

Now, we all know—we all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans haven’t yet recovered.
Click to expand...

Should I repeat that you do your own research next time, and don't take snopes word for it?
 
Childlike Empress said:
What a load of junk. So the Armani jacket was reduced in price after Killary wore it, and maybe she didn't pay for it at all, and the speech she gave about poor Maxine and Mikey and Erica wasn't about "income inequality" because those exact words didn't appear and Snopes decided that only two paragraphs were relevant - I'm sure Maxine and Mikey and Erica are not amused.

Seriously, what a laughable "fact check".
Click to expand...

No. Seriously, what a laughable smear. She gave her stump speech with a little bit of "Hey, I won, thank you....". It just reads better, as Jumpin' Joe Goebbels taught you propagandists, if you highlight that bit of the speech.

She's got a lot of money. She spent some on clothes.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Now you went from "lie" to "mostly false" to "doesn't matter" in rapid movement. Impressive work, oh rational one.
Click to expand...

No.... it's all the same. The Big Dog promoted an article of half-innuendo and gossip,... published by a Murdoch rag political gossip writer... as though it was believable. As with the North of Citgo methodology, prove any part a lie, and the whole thing's a lie.

It's not a story if:
She got the jacket as a gift.
She got a huge discount on it.
Her speech was not on the "ironic" subject matter claimed.

The first and second are not known. All that's known is the list price. The mark-down is speculation. Maybe she got a head start on a tag sale at Armani. Fashion houses do that all the time; call in top clientele 24/72 hours before they reduce prices to the general market. The point is, it's not known, but the whole basis of the "irony" is that it's so expensive and the Gotcha falls apart when no one can say what the price was, if it was any amount.

Further, it was her NY victory speech in the primaries. She covered a lot of territory. The Twitter world was selling it and continued to sell it as "Hillary scheduled a speech on income inequality and wore an outrageously expensive designer outfit." It's almost as good to simply point out that "in a speech supposedly directed to middle class and lower middle class voters, Hillary Clinton was garbed in an expensive jacket", but the propaganda mill needed to embroider the **** out of the topic.
 
Foolmewunz said:
.... but are just too busy Hillary-Hatin' to find time to express any problems with Trump?

Explain.
Click to expand...

I explained this literally a couple posts up from this one. In it I specifically mention that I've explained this before but no one ever listens and just keeps repeating arguments like yours.

Then you come along and posted this gem validating exactly what I've said.
 
The_Animus said:
I explained this literally a couple posts up from this one. In it I specifically mention that I've explained this before but no one ever listens and just keeps repeating arguments like yours.

Then you come along and posted this gem validating exactly what I've said.
Click to expand...

I was actually addressing a poster who suffers from that ailment.

I assumed you were speaking for yourself. If you think your post applies to the general population of Hillary bashers, I believe you are mistaken.

We have a series of posters who claim to not like Trump, who have no hope in hell of any other proposition but Clinton, but who devote their entire posting day to publishing rumors, innuendo, slander and curious interpretations of laws that they pull out of their asses. Some do it because they are devoted conservatives and they'd be doing it to Obama, Cuomo, Sanders, Warren, or anyone. There's another group who are nearly Oedipal in their obsession with Clinton. And there's yet another group - supposed progressives who feel that their beliefs will be justified if Clinton fails and cannot help themselves, even knowing that Trump would be a complete disaster for the country. (And I'm leaving out the furriners who have some sort of inexplicable anti-USA bias and are cheering for the worst results because it confirms their opinions of stupid Yanks.)

I don't like Hillary Clinton. Like Obama, I consider her corporatist-right. I do not think the Democratic Party is going to nominate anyone in my lifetime (which hasn't got that much left to it) who actually comes close to my left-ish beliefs. I'll accept Clinton because this may well be the last great battle to completely wreck the dangerous reactionary entity that the GOP has become.

But it's not a pro-Clinton election. It's a Stop Trump/Stop The GOP election.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Do you repeat any lie you read on Hang The Bitch Dot Com?

Do some research.
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
No.... it's all the same. The Big Dog promoted an article of half-innuendo and gossip,... published by a Murdoch rag political gossip writer... as though it was believable. As with the North of Citgo methodology, prove any part a lie, and the whole thing's a lie.

It's not a story if:
She got the jacket as a gift.
She got a huge discount on it.
Her speech was not on the "ironic" subject matter claimed.

The first and second are not known. All that's known is the list price. The mark-down is speculation. Maybe she got a head start on a tag sale at Armani. Fashion houses do that all the time; call in top clientele 24/72 hours before they reduce prices to the general market. The point is, it's not known, but the whole basis of the "irony" is that it's so expensive and the Gotcha falls apart when no one can say what the price was, if it was any amount.

Further, it was her NY victory speech in the primaries. She covered a lot of territory. The Twitter world was selling it and continued to sell it as "Hillary scheduled a speech on income inequality and wore an outrageously expensive designer outfit." It's almost as good to simply point out that "in a speech supposedly directed to middle class and lower middle class voters, Hillary Clinton was garbed in an expensive jacket", but the propaganda mill needed to embroider the **** out of the topic.
Click to expand...

he went from accusing me of repeating a lie to flat out making things up in an hour.

By the way? CNBC aint a Mudoch rag and your precious Snopes confirmed the price of the jacket. That is why ad hominem fallacies are fallacies

Look, ya learned something and ya did not even have to "do some research."
 
The Big Dog said:
he went from accusing me of repeating a lie to flat out making things up in an hour.

By the way? CNBC aint a Mudoch rag and your precious Snopes confirmed the price of the jacket. That is why ad hominem fallacies are fallacies

Look, ya learned something and ya did not even have to "do some research."
Click to expand...

Read the CNBC article again, perfesser. It says, ".... according to the NY Post". I already quoted it for you. Why CNBC is reporting what the Post said and what Twitter users are repeating is beyond me. Ask CNBC.
 
Why do Hillarys opponents focus on what she wears all the time?
You don't see people blasting MALE politicians on their outfits.

I will declare this the 'Fallacy of the outfit'. Argument via clothing. If you attack the outfit, it means you have nothing of substance, and thus must mock the appearance of the person.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh mercy, you know that when someone spends several lines on why his fallacy is not a tu quoque that in fact it is going to be one HELL of a tu quoque!

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.
Changing the subject ain't gonna help either.
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
did you read the Snopes article, FMW? I mean really read it?

It is filled with spin and bald speculation.

They actually confirm that 1. the jacket was priced at $12,500
2. it was an Armani jacket
3. she wore it while spewing these platitudes about income inequality:
Should I repeat that you do your own research next time, and don't take snopes word for it?
Click to expand...

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/

WHAT'S FALSE: The jacket was several thousand dollars less expensive than reported and was not worn during a speech on "income inequality."

Are you tired from constantly moving those goalposts ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/

WHAT'S FALSE: The jacket was several thousand dollars less expensive than reported and was not worn during a speech on "income inequality."

Are you tired from constantly moving those goalposts ?
Click to expand...

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:

And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality,
Click to expand...

Who ya kidding Snopes Kim Lacapria??

Come on "skeptics" use your noodles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom