Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #19890
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- ********-5
- the very last point is a bit silly, anyone care to debunk any of these other points********
- The first point is definitely false. http://www.snopes.co…********
- The 2nd point is also false. http://www.snopes.co…********
- Shall I keep going? Would you like to take 2 minutes to factcheck this nonsense before you post it?********
- Or, from now on should we just assume everything you post is bullshit?********
- bustedmoldero
- nb, did you read the link past the red false stamp. that is exactly why she was fired, it says so in the link you posted after extensive double speak and conjec********
- -ture********
- lol, nb, calling me out on not fact checking when he clearly didn't read his own rebuttal link. anyways, yes, please continue********
- Did YOU read the article?********
- "However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her fr********
- om her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her********
- her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he based that characterization were one********
- s that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.********
- yup, and her boss stated the exact reasons he fired her and the dumb ass snopes.com dismisses that as 'his subjective opinion' what utter fuckery is this snopes********
- and the second rebuttal is equally as stupid coming from the same intellectually dishonest cite. debunking a poorly worded meme instead of the facts that she is********
- on audio recording laughing about how she knew he was guilty and that because of it she no longer has faith in polygraph tests which he had passed********
- long story short, this snopes.com site is a pile of horse shit, debunk failure of the highest order, they figure they can baffle 90% of people with their bulls********
- -hit. so are you a baffled dumbass or didn't you read past the second paragraph where they argue semantics********
- You should read it a little more closely.********
- You're obviously missing a lot of the information that's in there.********
- once again, utter bullshit, do you believe everything you read on this stupid as fuck snopes website, zeifman was the chief of staff for the house judiciary com********
- -itee and was most definitely her supervisor. try again nb, and this time cross reference your lazy shit********
- Snopes is quoting things that have been written about Zeifman. Things he said, or have been attributed to him, and in HIS books. They're not fabricating.********
- Zeifman is even quoted as saying "If I had the power to fire her, I would have." So, he changed his story, and then back again. You still believe him?********
- they are editorializing and while doing so contradicting the quotes they are presenting. utter garbage, i'm not interested in opinion pieces********
- never mind the fact that they outright lie frequently while trying to minimize hillary's scum bag antics********
- Well, if you're going to ignore facts, I can't help you.********
- such as saying that zeifman wasn't supervising her on the watergate investigation, outright lie********
- you can help me plenty, just cite sources that aren't blatantly intellectually dishonest in their attempts to editorialize and misrepresent********
- seriously, that site is utter trash, you can do better********
- Well, he said himself that he didn't have the authority to fire her.********
- Look, you're obviously pre-disposed to hate Hillary and you're reaching really far to make a point. But the evidence isn't there. Sorry.********
- right, untill the investigation was over, and then he fired her for the reasons stated, c'mon man, google is your friend********
- well regardless of the specifics, call it a negative character witness if you would like. next point********
- the evidence is simply that her supervisor who was the chief of staff of the house judiciary committee says that she is, in short, a scumbag. the semantics don********
- 't really change anything, fired her didn't fire her, doesn't change much of anything. next point nb********
- So Zeifman didn't like her, but he's been changing his story over the years, and you believe him instead of all the people who say he's wrong and/or lying?********
- Also, you haven't posted any evidence. You're just saying that mine isn't good enough. Your shitty jpg doesn't even have source. Lulz.********
- that's not how debunking works pal, anyways, he's a character witness, take it for what it is. anyways, would you care to move on to the next point********
- nb the laziest researcher alive.. one website to debunk them all lol. geez.yurimon
- Better than Trump ;)monospaced
- yeah lets not point out here 30 years of accomplishments that significantly outnumber all this lmaoCygnusZero4
- *herCygnusZero4
- i would like you to list some of those accomplishments********
- Lulz at you fucking clowns complaining that snopes isn't good enough. You haven't even posted a single source.********
- see the way you debunking this works is that i throw things at you that i may or may not have researched and you show it to be false if you can********
- posting the same ham-fistedly dishonest site over and over and quoting it's blatant untruths is not good enough, no********
- terry_triggeredmonospaced
- mono_useless********
- that doesn't even make sensemonospaced
- you are useless and i shorten your qbn handle down to mono. any more questions sweetheart********
- the very last point is a bit silly, anyone care to debunk any of these other points