13 Minutes of Hillary Lying

Originally posted by no1marauder
"I have no information" "I'm not sure where the information came from" and his other phrases don't "indicate" anything except he doesn't know.

You are the one calling Hillary a "liar". Provide the evidence supporting that claim. I have tried numerous searches but I can't find anywhere where the State Department "confirmed" the information did not come ...[text shortened]... r people at the July meeting that the info came from someone at State. But you're not there yet.

"But the burden remains on you, not me."

Wrong. I provided evidence from a well-respected source saying the State Department confirmed this. Since you dispute The Washington Post, the burden of proof is now on you to show the State Department didn't confirm the indication that Hillary's figure didn't come from them.

You've now dodged the question of WHO from the State Department gave Hillary's staff the 90-95 percent figure, for about six consecutive posts. That speaks volumes about how hopeless your arguments are.

Originally posted by vivify
"But the burden remains on you, not me."

Wrong. I provided evidence from a well-respected source saying the State Department confirmed this. Since you dispute The Washington Post, the burden of proof is now on you to show the State Department didn't confirm the indication that Hillary's figure didn't come from them.

You've now dodged the question o ...[text shortened]... e, for about six consecutive posts. That speaks volumes about how hopeless your arguments are.

That's ridiculous and I think you know it. The WP saying something that is wrong doesn't make it anymore reliable than whodey. Toner didn't indicate anything except he didn't know and you have been utterly unable to point to any "confirmation" from the State Department. You are the one calling people liars - prove it.

I didn't dodge anything and you know it. From two pages ago:

vivify: WHO from the meeting told her that figure?

no1: I assume one or more of her staff who was present.


FRom one page ago:

no1: I have tried numerous searches but I can't find anywhere where the State Department "confirmed" the information did not come from anyone at State nor anyplace where anybody from HC's campaign or staff specifically said who at State said it nor who was at the July meeting.


So I told you I have not been able to find any information about who was at the July meeting. So I don't know - which isn't a "dodge". A dodge is what you have been doing as regards the "confirmation" from the State Department which you apparently cannot produce any evidence of its existence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's ridiculous and I think you know it. The WP saying something that is wrong doesn't make it anymore reliable than whodey. Toner didn't indicate anything except he didn't know and you have been utterly unable to point to any "confirmation" from the State Department. You are the one calling people liars - prove it.

I didn't dodge anything and you k ...[text shortened]... on" from the State Department which you apparently cannot produce any evidence of its existence.

I didn't dodge anything and you know it. From two pages ago:

vivify: WHO from the meeting told her that figure?

no1: I assume one or more of her staff who was present

This is what makes you a joke. I said:

You've now dodged the question of WHO from the State Department gave Hillary's staff the 90-95 percent figure

It doesn't matter if Hillary's staff told her this figure. All that matters is who from the State Disagreement told her staff this, like she claimed but can't back up. You've dodged this so much now, it's almost farcical.

You had to go back a few pages for a few pages for that quote, when the quote I wanted you to answer was right before your last post...and you claim you don't cherry-pick.

Originally posted by vivify
[b]I didn't dodge anything and you know it. From two pages ago:

vivify: WHO from the meeting told her that figure?

no1: I assume one or more of her staff who was present

This is what makes you a joke. I said:

You've now dodged the question of WHO from the State Department gave Hillary's staff the 90-95 percent figure

...[text shortened]... te I wanted you to answer was right before your last post...and you claim you don't cherry-pick.[/b]

The fact remains that the one dodging is you. You have no real evidence to support the claim that Hillary's staff didn't receive the information from the State Department. So you haven't even got to the "false" part of a lie (you claimed in the first post you had " clear instances of deliberate untruths"😉 never mind the "deliberate" and "intention to deceive" parts. Again YOU are the one claiming Hillary is lying so the onus is on YOU to present evidence proving this claim and showing that what Hillary said was a lie. You can't and all the smoke and mirrors about who exactly from the State Department gave her staff the accurate information that 90-95% of her sent e-mails were on state.gov accounts is a red herring.

Since this has been clearly pointed out to you and you don't have any real answer to it, the one who appears to have been lying is you.

So you admit that I answered your question on the last page but you still falsely claimed on this page that I was "dodging" it. What does that make you?

Here's what vivify's standard of evidence looks like:

no1: I had waffles for breakfast this morning.

vivify: You're a liar!

no1: No, I really did have waffles for breakfast this morning.

vivify: I will claim you are a liar until you produce a receipt from the Gateway Diner, can state the name of your waitress and do whatever else comes into my mind because I have already come to the unalterable conclusion that you lied about having waffles.

Originally posted by vivify
So you chop up my post in order to misquote me and lie. Classy.

I have not misquoted you.

That quote wasn't about the obviousness of the video; it was about your cheap debate tactics of asking me to defend the video---though the video already defends its points--while you provide no argument of your own.
So do you, or do you not, claim that the video defends its points. You can't seem to make up your mind.

Congrats. You've proven yourself a liar.
You are very good at calling people liars. Not so good at demonstrating it.

Since you've proven yourself a liar, we're done here.
Except neither I nor Clinton have proven to be liars. You on the other hand .....

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your constant falsehoods about my positions here are tiresome and utterly hypocritical in someone who keeps complaining about someone else's supposed "lies".

Not being a partisan shill like you are, I take the same approach to all claims that someone has lied i.e. present the evidence supporting the claim that the statement made by X is a knowingly fa ...[text shortened]... dence.

That you or vivify or anyone else find this frustrating is your or their own problem.

Like I said, the whole human race lies except you and your partisan political candidate you want to promote your political agendas, who just happens to be Hillary.

Marauder, the one source of all truthiness. 😵

Originally posted by whodey
Like I said, the whole human race lies except you and your partisan political candidate you want to promote your political agendas, who just happens to be Hillary.

Marauder, the one source of all truthiness. 😵

You are one of the few people almost incapable of opening your mouth without lying.
The majority of people lie occasionally, but not all the time. It is not reasonable to assume everything anyone says is a lie. That is only a reasonable assumption when it comes to you.
In this particular case it would appear the evidence points to the fact that Hillary not only told the truth, but knew she was telling the truth.
So far, you have not provided one shred of evidence either way, all you have provided is sarcasm, and poorly thought out sarcasm at that.
Vivify provided evidence that proved himself wrong but wont admit it.

Has Hillary lied at least once in her life? If course. Was the statement in question a lie? The evidence suggests not.

I would have been happy to show a few other statements in that video that were portrayed as lies were in fact not lies, but given vivifys despicable behaviour so far I won't bother. He couldn't care less about the truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are one of the few people almost incapable of opening your mouth without lying.
The majority of people lie occasionally, but not all the time. It is not reasonable to assume everything anyone says is a lie. That is only a reasonable assumption when it comes to you.
In this particular case it would appear the evidence points to the fact that Hillary ...[text shortened]... given vivifys despicable behaviour so far I won't bother. He couldn't care less about the truth.

The majority of Americans would disagree with you and distrust Hillary.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-more-americans-distrust-than-120530067591.html

No doubt, they have succumb to the vast right winged conspiracy.

Foil hat anyone? 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
The majority of Americans would disagree with you and distrust Hillary.

I never said I trust Hillary.
And I really couldn't care less about what the majority of Americans think. Considering the number of Trump supporters you have there, my opinion of Americans is that there are a rather large number of really really stupid ones (obviously not all Americans are that stupid).
It remains the case that she appears to have been telling the truth in the instance in question.

Of course South Africa isn't much different in that we have a lot of really stupid people, but again, their opinion isn't worth much and shouldn't be used as a way of determining truth.

No doubt, they have succumb to the vast right winged conspiracy.
I don't know why you think that.

Foil hat anyone? 🙄
No, I am not interested in your foil hats.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said I trust Hillary.
And I really couldn't care less about what the majority of Americans think. Considering the number of Trump supporters you have there, my opinion of Americans is that there are a rather large number of really really stupid ones (obviously not all Americans are that stupid).
It remains the case that she appears to have been ...[text shortened]... w why you think that.

[b]Foil hat anyone? 🙄
No, I am not interested in your foil hats.[/b]

No foil hat?

Killjoy! 😠

So you don't care what the majority of the people think, eh?

When did you become anti-democracy?

So does anyone here know the difference between Hillary Clinton and a battery?












































You can charge a battery.

Originally posted by whodey
No foil hat?

Killjoy! 😠

So you don't care what the majority of the people think, eh?

When did you become anti-democracy?

I have always been anti one man one vote pure democracy. Trump is a good example of why that is such a bad idea.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have always been anti one man one vote pure democracy. Trump is a good example of why that is such a bad idea.

So are you in favor of "fixing" elections?

If Hillary "fixed" all her elections, would you approve so long as it stops Trump?

Originally posted by whodey
So are you in favor of "fixing" elections?

If Hillary "fixed" all her elections, would you approve so long as it stops Trump?

No. I am just not in favour of making every decision by popular vote.
I can just live with elections where each person gets a vote, but that is merely due to the lack of better options.
The reality is, that it is the processes that take place between elections that really count and how well those are designed is what matters. I have lived in countries where the election is everything and once in power the dictator does pretty much whatever he likes until the next election. That is a terrible system.

Your focus on the president of the US partly shows that in the US there is too much power given to the presidency and too much emphasis on the election. In Europe you will find that presidents are typically much less well known and it is less important who the president / prime minister is.
The US situation is partly the system and party media focus. Even in the US, local politics are really more important but most people don't know that because the media doesn't care.