28 Sep 16
7 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudera) You're a hypocrite for accusing anyone of hair-splitting, since you're notorious for it.
I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.
The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.
Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other th ...[text shortened]... ely so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
b) Reasonable assumptions aren't the same as accurate statements. Assuming the sun revolved around the earth was a reasonable assumption for early humans; it's far from accurate.
Hilary's claim that the State Department told her this "95 percent" is NOT accurate; it's a lie, especially since she can't even name who from the Department supposedly told her this.
28 Sep 16
Originally posted by no1marauder"I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate"."
I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.
The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.
Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other th ...[text shortened]... ely so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
the dictionary does.
28 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyYour ridiculous twisting of the facts continues. Hillary never said that someone from the State Department personally told her that; she said the information came from the State Department. Do you know the difference? Do you realize it matters a great deal when you continue to make the unsupported, inflammatory claim that she "lied" about it?
a) You're a hypocrite for accusing anyone of hair-splitting, since you're notorious for it.
b) Reasonable assumptions aren't the same as accurate statements. Assuming the sun revolved around the earth was a reasonable assumption for early humans; it's far from accurate.
Hilary's claim that the State Department told her this "95 percent" is NOT accurate ...[text shortened]... 's a lie, especially since she can't even name who from the Department supposedly told her this.
Probably not.
EDIT: Her exact quote was:
“We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the e-mails that were already on the system."
"We" referring to herself and her staff.
28 Sep 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't think so. The 90-95% figure was given as an approximate number; if it turns out to be "reasonable" (as it did) that pretty much means it was "accurate" to a significant degree (as it is).
"I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate"."
the dictionary does.
28 Sep 16
Just to recap; Gowdy initially argued that Hillary must have lied about the 90-95% figure because he had a State Department study showing that only a tiny percentage of e-mails by their employees were saved by the system. Vivify adopted this argument for about 4-5 pages in the prior thread - there was no talk about the 90-95% figure being a "reasonable estimate"; it was an outrageous "lie".
It turns out the study Gowdy cited SPECIFICALLY stated that the Secretary of State and other high level employees of that department DID NOT use the specific system that captured so few of the e-mails; that instead they used a number of systems that would capture a far higher amount. Thus, the claim that Hillary "lied" about the 90-95% figure fell to dust and Republicans stopped using it.
We are left with the pathetic fallback position that vivify is now using i.e. that even though the 90-95% is approximately correct, Hillary "lied" when she said "we" got the information from the State Department. Apparently his position is that she took a wild guess that turned out to be about right and for some bizarre reason choose to say that the figure came from the State Department - which could have easily and immediately said it did not.
I leave it to reasonable minds to determine how likely that scenario is.
28 Sep 16
Originally posted by no1marauderA lie constructed with the help of her team is still a lie. Lawyers do it with their clients all the time.
Your ridiculous twisting of the facts continues. Hillary never said that someone from the State Department personally told her that; she said the information came from the State Department. Do you know the difference? Do you realize it matters a great deal when you continue to make the unsupported, inflammatory claim that she "lied" about it?
Probably ...[text shortened]... sis of the e-mails that were already on the system."
"We" referring to herself and her staff.
28 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"We are left with the pathetic fallback position that vivify is now using i.e. that even though the 90-95% is approximately correct"
Just to recap; Gowdy initially argued that Hillary must have lied about the 90-95% figure because he had a State Department study showing that only a tiny percentage of e-mails by their employees were saved by the system. Vivify adopted this argument for about 4-5 pages in the prior thread - there was no talk about the 90-95% figure being a "reasonable e ...[text shortened]... ely said it did not.
I leave it to reasonable minds to determine how likely that scenario is.
Wrong. I never said that figure was "approximately correct". Way to misquote me. I never used "correct" and "Hilary" in the same sentence. I used the word "assumption".
Your need to misquote in order to try to win a point is amusing.
Originally posted by no1marauderno1maruder -1
I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.
The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.
Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other th ...[text shortened]... ely so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
vivify - 0
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by vivifyI didn't quote you so you are "lying" as you define it.
"We are left with the pathetic fallback position that vivify is now using i.e. that even though the 90-95% is approximately correct"
Wrong. I never said that figure was "approximately correct". Way to misquote me. I never used "correct" and "Hilary" in the same sentence. I used the word "assumption".
Your need to misquote in order to try to win a point is amusing.
Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by no1marauder"I don't think"
I don't think so. The 90-95% figure was given as an approximate number; if it turns out to be "reasonable" (as it did) that pretty much means it was "accurate" to a significant degree (as it is).
yes
" if it turns out to be "reasonable" (as it did) that pretty much means it was "accurate""
"pretty much"
tell me, if "reasonable" and "close enough" means accurate, what word would you use for "on target"? super accurate? very accurate? the accuratest?
Originally posted by no1marauderFalsely attributed, deliberately misrepresented, wrongly implied....whichever satisfies your legal definition of intentional falsehood.
I didn't quote you so you are "lying" as you define it.
"Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?
Bill Clinton, a former lawyer, once disputed the meaning of the word "is". You've disputed the meaning of "accurate". You attorney's are a silly bunch.
I already explained the difference between an reasonable assumption and a correct statement. Early humans reasonably assumed the sun revolved around the earth. That assumption was far from correct.
This is all getting away from the fact that falsely claimed the State Department said something that the department can't confirm. and that she can't even provide a name for to back up her claim. Clear evidence of a lie. You just want to focus on the "reasonable assumption" part, to make us forget about the blatantly false statement.
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI would expect nothing more or less from a Euro leftie. Little to nothing is known of Trump, as he hasn't been in government, but he has committed the great sin of making a lot of money, outside the Democrat party's methods. HC has a long track record with plenty of criminality from Arkansas to Benghazi.
It's because Trump is a lot worse. The election is not a choice between two bad options, it's a choice between a bad one and a choice so awful I have no good metaphor or simile for it.
Also despite never really having a job, she has managed to be nearly as wealthy as is Trump. How does that happen?
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziA "reasonable estimate" may or may not be accurate. It is less accurate than a physical count, and the inaccuracy could be on either the high or low side. Different people and professions require different levels of accuracy. Your cardiac surgeon is hoped to be extremely accurate, even your carpet installer needs a degree of accuracy.
"I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate"."
the dictionary does.
If you are talking about the Federal debt, a billion here or there, well how much does it mean?
29 Sep 16
Originally posted by vivifyAnswer the question please:
Falsely attributed, deliberately misrepresented, wrongly implied....whichever satisfies your legal definition of intentional falsehood.
"Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?
Bill Clinton, a former lawyer, once disputed the meaning of the word "is". You've disputed the meaning of "accurate". You attorney's are a silly bunch ...[text shortened]... ocus on the "reasonable assumption" part, to make us forget about the blatantly false statement.
"Is it your claim that the 90-95% isn't "approximately correct"?
The State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the statement. Thus, you have no evidence the statement is even false; and that's only Step 1 in establishing a lie.