Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2016, 04:50 AM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 04:48 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 03:36 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Very well I have procured for you this list.

Make of it what you will.

Thanks for the link. I'll read through it and get back to you later on.

No need to get back to me, I don't waste my time debating small conspiracies. There are much bigger fish in the sea to fry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 04:50 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No need to get back to me, I don't waste my time debating small conspiracies. There are much bigger fish in the sea to fry.

Uh... you're actually the person who first introduced the notion of Clinton murder conspiracies. Quote, "sure wish Trump could help heal all the people she murdered " and "when people start dying who were going to testify against the defendant in an investigation, that I believe warrants some suspicion ". Short memory perhaps?

Anyway, I checked out the list, and discovered that its source, WND (WorldNetDaily)... espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism... While they present themselves as news, WND is essentially a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom... The scary thing is, this bilge is actually slightly influential, with made-up bullshit from WND making its way out the mouths of wingnut congressmen and cable TV pundits far too often. Most notably, WND became ground zero for the Birther movement during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.
——RationalWiki

And from Snopes: Clinton Body Bags.

And this is probably exactly why your hero Mr Drumpf has decided not to investigate H. Clinton. Even although he has the intellectual capacity of a can of sardines, Donny realises it's all bullshit.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
26-11-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 06:30 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Even although he has the intellectual capacity of a can of sardines, Donny realises it's all bullshit.

But he's happy to cynically take advantage of the twits who do believe it when it suits him.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 06:30 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 04:50 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No need to get back to me, I don't waste my time debating small conspiracies. There are much bigger fish in the sea to fry.

Uh... you're actually the person who first introduced the notion of Clinton murder conspiracies. Quote, "sure wish Trump could help heal all the people she murdered " and "when people start dying who were going to testify against the defendant in an investigation, that I believe warrants some suspicion ". Short memory perhaps?

Anyway, I checked out the list, and discovered that its source, WND (WorldNetDaily)... espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism... While they present themselves as news, WND is essentially a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom... The scary thing is, this bilge is actually slightly influential, with made-up bullshit from WND making its way out the mouths of wingnut congressmen and cable TV pundits far too often. Most notably, WND became ground zero for the Birther movement during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.
——RationalWiki

And from Snopes: Clinton Body Bags.

And this is probably exactly why your hero Mr Drumpf has decided not to investigate H. Clinton. Even although he has the intellectual capacity of a can of sardines, Donny realises it's all bullshit.

Now you see I knew you would do this. The moment you had to stop and ask me to provide you with a list instead of taking it upon yourself if you were curious meant that you were already set to try and prove me wrong

Sometimes just because something has the word rational in it doesn't mean its going to be rational.

Sometimes people who don't believe in a god, don't necessarily use the same critical thinking that they would use on religion and apply them to the government and conspiracy theories.

Now to refute your judgement.

If you had already assumed the answer that I was wrong before hand you would have been using confirmation bias, which is a logical fallacy. Right from the get go in your response to me you used ad hominem to attack the reputability of wnd instead of trying to disprove what was being said.

At the very beginning you used an ad homimen fallacy to refute wnd but not their argument. Or at least rationalwiki does, which proves the previous point about something just because it has the word rational in it... but regardless it is what you decided to quote and use in your retort which means that you are now also using the same logical fallacy.

To further the point on the confirmation bias, you wouldn't have been searching for something to try and refute the argument put forth by wnd by attacking their character unless you already had a formulated opinion before you even looked at what they had to say.

As for snopes, they start out with a very minute person in terms of probability of being killed by the Clinton's, further more, I don't believe all the people on the list were killed by the Clinton's but the list does provide some reasonable suspicion about their deaths.

Secondly for Snopes "And, right away, we have come to the first big lie of the "Clinton Body Count"" and right away we see them assuming the answer, hardly going to be an impartial presentation from this point out.

Thirdly they give a very brief description of the people and their involvement with the clinton's (not that all of them were killed by the Clintons)

Fourthly WND lists the people who died in chronological order, the same however can not be said for Snopes. WND gets at least 10 Gryffindor points for tidiness.

Fifthly the snopes list doesn't include any of the people who died in 2016 during her presidential campaign.

So yeah... poor choice of utensils to start out with on your part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 03:36 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 12:47 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Firstly, I have no particular "position" one way or the other (particularly as I'm in Australia). And yes, my questions are legitimate, and I'd appreciate your answers. If you make claims such as you've made, then you have to support them with viable evidence. If you don't choose to—or can't do so—then I can only dismiss your claims as nonsense and not worthwhile considering.

So... why don't you let me know who Clinton had murdered, and by whom, and we'll take it from there?

Very well I have procured for you this list.

Make of it what you will.

Rush Limbaugh is your evidence?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
26-11-2016, 06:36 PM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 11:45 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 03:36 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Very well I have procured for you this list.

Make of it what you will.

Rush Limbaugh is your evidence?

I don't have a very strong idea on who that is or his connection with this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 06:43 PM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 06:36 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 11:45 AM)tomilay Wrote:  Rush Limbaugh is your evidence?

I don't have a very strong idea on who that is or his connection with this.

Watch the first video in your link. It might be a good idea to read your links before sharing them.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 07:09 PM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 06:43 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 06:36 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I don't have a very strong idea on who that is or his connection with this.

Watch the first video in your link. It might be a good idea to read your links before sharing them.

Ah so there is, I don't really listen to radio shows.

Let me put things in this way for you, if the Nazis supported evolution, does that make evolution wrong? Of course not, judge argument not the man.

If you were not judging the argument instead of the man then you would not have felt the need to speak up about the man and not the argument.

Ad hominem at its finest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 07:15 PM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 07:09 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If you were not judging the argument instead of the man then you would not have felt the need to speak up about the man and not the argument.

I judge a man by the sources he uses.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 07:17 PM
RE: Trump Drops Threat To Invesigate Hillary
(26-11-2016 07:09 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 06:43 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Watch the first video in your link. It might be a good idea to read your links before sharing them.

Ah so there is, I don't really listen to radio shows.

Let me put things in this way for you, if the Nazis supported evolution, does that make evolution wrong? Of course not, judge argument not the man.

If you were not judging the argument instead of the man then you would not have felt the need to speak up about the man and not the argument.

Ad hominem at its finest.

Why did you post the link? It seems like you did not know its content before you were called out.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: