13 Minutes of Hillary Lying

Originally posted by twhitehead
On the contrary, there most definitely is. And it isn't the flat earther.

[b]The condition or state of a person's mind cannot and does not alter the presence of a lie.
Find a dictionary.
Look up 'lie'.
Then find an encyclopedia.
Look up 'shape of the earth'.
Educate yourself, its embarrassing.[/b]

What's embarrassing is watching you try to prove you're right about Clinton by pointing to a spherical vs flat earth argument.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What's embarrassing is watching you try to prove you're right about Clinton by pointing to a spherical vs flat earth argument.

What is embarrassing is you thinking that that is what I have done. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

To help you out a bit:
I would never even try to reason with a flat earther as it is futile to do so (and quite clearly stated so in this thread).
Vivify, whom I have tried to reasons with (to little effect so far), is not a flat earther and I have not mentioned it to him at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is embarrassing is you thinking that that is what I have done. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

To help you out a bit:
I would never even try to reason with a flat earther as it is futile to do so (and quite clearly stated so in this thread).
Vivify, whom I have tried to reasons with (to little effect so far), is not a flat earther and I have not mentioned it to him at all.

May I step in?
Thank you.
Your idiocy knows no boundary.
We are not here discussing the shape of the earth.
It literally has nothing to do with this discussion, one iota, jot, or tittle.
Because you realize how completely void your position of support for a proven liar is, you are doing the only thing left for you to do: deflect to something completely unrelated.

Your error had been pointed out to you.
Your leprosy is no secret.
Just resign already.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your idiocy knows no boundary.

Says the flat earther.

We are not here discussing the shape of the earth.
I know. That would be idiotic.

It literally has nothing to do with this discussion, one iota, jot, or tittle.
And you may note that I am not having 'this discussion' with a flat earther, because flat earthers cannot be reasoned with.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Says the flat earther.

[b]We are not here discussing the shape of the earth.
I know. That would be idiotic.

It literally has nothing to do with this discussion, one iota, jot, or tittle.
And you may note that I am not having 'this discussion' with a flat earther, because flat earthers cannot be reasoned with.[/b]

Freaky: "Your idiocy knows no boundary."
twhitehead: "Says the flat earther."
Freaky: "We are not here discussing the shape of the earth."
twhitehead: "I know. That would be idiotic."

Ohhh, my aching funny bone!


( hilarious hijinks )

Originally posted by lemon lime
twhitehead: "Says the flat earther."
Freaky: "We are not here discussing the shape of the earth."
twhitehead: "I know. That would be idiotic."

Ohhh, my aching funny bone!


( hilarious hijinks )

Reading comprehension fail again.

I see you cant tell the difference between 'a flat earther' and 'the shape of the earth'. Quite sad really.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Reading comprehension fail again.

I see you cant tell the difference between 'a flat earther' and 'the shape of the earth'. Quite sad really.

Suggestion: compile a type of dictionary, or even an encyclopedia, which describes, defines and otherwise outlines your views on reality in order for those outside your lunar cycle to follow along, keep their own box scores.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Suggestion: compile a type of dictionary, or even an encyclopedia, which describes, defines and otherwise outlines your views on reality in order for those outside your lunar cycle to follow along, keep their own box scores.

How many times must I tell you before this sinks in:
A flat earther hinting at the lunacy of others just doesn't work! It falls flat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many times must I tell you before this sinks in:
A flat earther hinting at the lunacy of others just doesn't work! It falls flat.

Your inability to set aside the ancillary and otherwise non-issue only underscores the weakness of your position.
The unsupportable, indefensible spot you find yourself in is a result of turning a blind eye to facts.
Owing to your sheer obstinate nature, it is a given you will continue to deflect without responding to the charges against your claims that Clinton was not, is not lying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your inability to set aside the ancillary and otherwise non-issue ....

You are incapable of reason. That you consider that an ancillary and otherwise non-issue only further confirms it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Go back and reread my post more carefully this time.

[b]You just refuted yourself.
No, I did not. You just failed to understand what I said.

2,000 emails have since been classified "confidential"

So by 'classified' you mean someone later on decided they were confidential? And was this before or after the meeting in questi ...[text shortened]... ails being discussed. Do you dispute that that reasoning of yours was ridiculous in the extreme?[/b]

You're playing games because you're embarrassed that you refuted yourself. I' never said that the classification of emails alone supports that Hillary lied; it's everything that's been mentioned thus far: the Attorney General (and the State Department) saying the exact opposite of what Hillary claimed (less than one percent of emails as opposed 90-95 percent), the fact that Hillary can't cite where that figure came from, etc. All of that is clearly evidence of her lying.

Originally posted by vivify
You're playing games because you're embarrassed that you refuted yourself.

Your accusing me of playing games because you have nothing better to say.
You have:
- made observations about my posting style.
- called my posts 'anger and tears'.
- called my posts 'playing games'
- and more
What you notably haven't done is respond to what I have said, nor provided any actual argument.

I' never said that the classification of emails alone supports that Hillary lied;
Good to know, so we can set that aside.

it's everything that's been mentioned thus far: the Attorney General (and the State Department) saying the exact opposite of what Hillary claimed (less than one percent of emails as opposed 90-95 percent),
Please quote both parties exactly. Lets see if they are really saying the exact opposite. Are they really talking about the same emails? Are you sure?

the fact that Hillary can't cite where that figure came from, etc.
She did cite it.

All of that is clearly evidence of her lying.
Err. No it isn't.
It is clear evidence that the Attorney General is lying. After all, by your logic, if someone cites a figure different from yours, they are lying. If nobody else in the room cited the same figure as yours, they are lying. Clearly that fits the Attorney General. Therefore by your logic he is lying.

Now this time, try and actually address the issue rather than going off on a rant about my posting style or my 'anger and tears'. Try and do better than the flat earther.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your accusing me of playing games because you have nothing better to say.
You have:
- made observations about my posting style.
- called my posts 'anger and tears'.
- called my posts 'playing games'
- and more
What you notably haven't done is respond to what I have said, nor provided any actual argument.

[b]I' never said that the classification o ...[text shortened]... a rant about my posting style or my 'anger and tears'. Try and do better than the flat earther.

You are indeed playing games.

When you allege that it's not clear what a figure in a video is referencing, then post a quote from the video that clearly states what it's referencing...are you not playing games? Or do you have poor listening comprehension?

My observations of your debating style are spot on: you dispute what's being said in the video without any support for doing so; yet, you demand I that I provide support for something clearly being said. Your goal is to put me on the defensive, while providing no actual argument. I called you on it at the beginning of this thread, and the rest of this thread proves it.

That would whine and cry about something that you frequently do (both before and after my observation about your debate style) is quite accurately described as anger tears; you're ticked that I'm on to this cheap tactic, and you'll be even more ticked now that you've proven me right, since the rest of your posts show you doing exactly what I've observed.

It is clear evidence that the Attorney General is lying. After all, by your logic, if someone cites a figure different from yours, they are lying. If nobody else in the room cited the same figure as yours, they are lying. Clearly that fits the Attorney General. Therefore by your logic he is lying.

The State Department also confirmed his statement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-90-percent-of-her-emails-were-in-the-system/

a State Department spokesman indicated that the [90-95] number did not come from any State Department analysis but was a calculation made by the Clinton campaign–a fact later confirmed by the Department.

So quite clearly, you're incorrect (again) in your claims about my logic.

Originally posted by vivify
You are indeed playing games.

When you allege that it's not clear what a figure in a video is referencing, then post a quote from the video that clearly states what it's referencing...are you not playing games? Or do you have poor listening comprehension?

My observations of your debating style are spot on: you dispute what's being said in the video ...[text shortened]... epartment.[/quote]

So quite clearly, you're incorrect (again) in your claims about my logic.

Do you know the difference between a statement that turns out to be incorrect and a lie?

If I say I went to see the Giants play the Dolphins last December 1st and it turns out they played on December 14th, am I a liar?

Clinton may have been wrong that it was the State Department that gave the 90-95% figure, but the figure itself remains reasonable; the State Department employees who received e-mails from HC on their official accounts would be in the system. Your link reinforces that logical assumption:

While not all of the e-mails she submitted to the State Department have been released, what has been made available so far suggests that a substantial majority are to and from at least one “state.gov” e-mail address. It is not an unreasonable assumption that these e-mails are contained somewhere within the bowels of the State Department.

A lie is a knowingly false statement made with intention to deceive. It is most unlikely that HC would have told this "lie" when it could be easily verified that the number did not come from the State Department even though it is certainly consistent with what the State Department has disclosed.

Originally posted by vivify
Hillary told the public that she "90-95 percent" of "work related emails" were in the state department's figure. Trey Gowdy asks her where that figure came from, Hillary says "the State Department". Gowdy then points out that the Attorney General found that figure to be be less than one percent.

Hillary's claim that the State Department told her a figu ...[text shortened]... to no one other than Hillary having cited that figure, is indeed evidence that she lied.

The link you just gave clearly shows that the "1%" number would not apply to HC's e-mails:

But it’s also not unreasonable for Clinton to assert that most of these e-mails resided somewhere in the State Department’s systems. Gowdy referenced an 2015 inspector general’s report concerning poor e-mail retention at the State Department, but that report concerned the e-mails of lower-level officials, under a system known as SMART (State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset). A footnote in the report makes that clear: “These assessments do not apply to the system used by the Department’s high-level principals, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, and their immediate staffs, which maintain separate systems.” (A statement from the National Archives also emphasizes that high-level memos are not captured by SMART.)

So the 1% v. 90-95% is an apples to oranges comparison.