More liberal censorship
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Ever since Billy Bob was Governor of Arkansas people around the Clintons mysteriously die.
https://americaswatchtower.com/2007/02/26/suspicious-deaths-around-the-clintons/
https://americaswatchtower.com/2007/02/26/suspicious-deaths-around-the-clintons/
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
I've known liberals that are the worst speech and thought Nazis that can be. They'll get livid against some intelligent arguments they can't defend their moronic stands against, would love to just silence opposition. As a group, they're a very totalitarian and degenerate bunch, this I've witnessed, experienced. There's surely much truth to what's behind their drooling over a gun grab, as Hillary has said not to let any crisis go to waste.
They have an agenda, which is enslavement to their party line and burying dissent. They're just a bunch of Bolsheviks at heart, don't really belong in America, given they hate what we actually stand for.
They have an agenda, which is enslavement to their party line and burying dissent. They're just a bunch of Bolsheviks at heart, don't really belong in America, given they hate what we actually stand for.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
The bodies strewn in their wake is striking. Law enforcement people have a general principle there's no such thing as a coincidence. It doesn't take a genius to read the evidence.
It's also in keeping with what I've noticed, re: previous post. Rabid liberals, you can tell, can get livid, would love to kill you for opposing their views, take dissent very personally, are hardened brainwashed and can go full tilt, emotionally, or are cold heartedly willing to do most anything, for having situational ethics, no fixed moral standards. That they don't have a problem getting rid of their opposition fits that pattern, perfectly, the good little, elitest Bolsheviks that they are.
I run across those kinds all of the time here and outside of TOL.
They're Trump supporters.
gcthomas
New member
Because it originated with a nut job conspiracy theorist who all the usual conspiracy crackpots reject as too crazy to take seriously?
Really, you ought to do at least a little fact checking before accepting this sort of idiocy, even if you are desperate for it to be true.
shagster01
New member
Seth Conrad Rich was killed while talking to his girlfriend on the phone and telling her that he was nearly home (not on his way to a meeting with the FBI at 4 in the morning), and was still alive and conscious when first responders arrived, yet told them nothing about a hit. A string of burglaries had recently taken place in that same area. There is zero evidence he was meeting with the FBI. Completely made up.
Victor Thorn shot himself.
Victor Thorn shot himself.
And the 40+ other names that were in the website that I posted above?
shagster01
New member
Do I have to do all the work for you?
I provided 40+ names of people that have mysteriously died while Willy Billy Jim Bob was Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States. I took your post regarding two that apparently didn't at face value. I'm wondering if you can refute any more of those claims?
gcthomas
New member
Jose Fly
New member
For the same reason "Obama is an ex-Taliban CIA operative" isn't.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I provided 40+ names of people that have mysteriously died while Willy Billy Jim Bob was Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States. I took your post regarding two that apparently didn't at face value. I'm wondering if you can refute any more of those claims?
I became suspicious of Snopes a few years ago when I read an article on Martin Luther King Jr, which denied facts about King that I knew to be true from several very good sources.
Evidently I'm not the only person suspicious of Snopes:
Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger
Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.
Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship.
She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4H54kLnCG
Provide something better than Snopes if you're attempting to defend the Clintons.
I provided 40+ names of people that have mysteriously died while Willy Billy Jim Bob was Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States. I took your post regarding two that apparently didn't at face value. I'm wondering if you can refute any more of those claims?
I became suspicious of Snopes a few years ago when I read an article on Martin Luther King Jr, which denied facts about King that I knew to be true from several very good sources.
Evidently I'm not the only person suspicious of Snopes:
Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger
Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.
Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship.
She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4H54kLnCG
Provide something better than Snopes if you're attempting to defend the Clintons.
gcthomas
New member
Why?
You posted a list without evidence and unquestioningly from a right wing conspiracy theorist nut job with a political axe to grind, as he rehashes tropes from political history, and you expect a step by step rebuttal?
When you post actual evidence to support your wild cut n past assertions, then you might be able to expect some thoughtful responses. Till then, you can whistle in the wind. Your post was partisan nonsens with nothing material to defend against.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Provide something better than Snopes if you're attempting to defend the Clintons.
Because as shown, Snopes isn't unbiased like you liberals want people to believe. The article I posted got better:
"Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.)
Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.
After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4H8HYSies
40+ people close to the Clintons have died, many in suspicious circumstances. Were the Clintons behind the murder of all of them? Probably not, but you can bet if the same circumstances involved a politician with strong conservative views, you liberals would be drooling all over yourselves with conspiracy theories.
Again: The next time you try to refute something, do your best not to use ultra liberal lemmings as "fact checkers".
Provide something better than Snopes if you're attempting to defend the Clintons.
Because as shown, Snopes isn't unbiased like you liberals want people to believe. The article I posted got better:
"Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.)
Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.
After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4H8HYSies
40+ people close to the Clintons have died, many in suspicious circumstances. Were the Clintons behind the murder of all of them? Probably not, but you can bet if the same circumstances involved a politician with strong conservative views, you liberals would be drooling all over yourselves with conspiracy theories.
Again: The next time you try to refute something, do your best not to use ultra liberal lemmings as "fact checkers".
The same as a retort from the DNC themselves, as snopes is a political activist site. You could have just said "nah nah nah, I am not listening to you".
gcthomas
New member
FactCheck did a review of potential political bias at Snopes based on stories about Bush, Palin and Obama, and found no bias in any case. Snopes provides their data sources.
Entirely unlike your favourite conservative rumour mongers.
Last edited:
shagster01
New member
shagster01
New member
Man, when I asked why aCW is allowed to use a biased website to make points and I'm not he just vanished.
gcthomas
New member
Yay!! He's gone to lick his wounds I expect. I am always amazed that aCW gets to make such offensive and fabricated slanders about people here. I had a ban once for simply calling someone an idiot in response to an insult. :idunno: