Clinton body count redux in one "info-graphic".

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

"Conspiracy theories"
"InfoWars"

Try again.

OMG!!!!

Did this place suddenly turn into a conspiracy website?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

"Conspiracy theories"
"InfoWars"

Try again.

OMG!!!!

Did this place suddenly turn into a conspiracy website?

LOL Yeah.
And don't forget the motto: Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

"Conspiracy theories"
"InfoWars"

Try again.

OMG!!!!

Did this place suddenly turn into a conspiracy website?

LOL Yeah.
And don't forget the motto: Deny Ignorance.

I certainly am not trying to stop you from doing that.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

"Conspiracy theories"
"InfoWars"

Try again.

OMG!!!!

Did this place suddenly turn into a conspiracy website?

LOL Yeah.
And don't forget the motto: Deny Ignorance.

I certainly am not trying to stop you from doing that.

Thank God!


I am not trying to defend Bill and Hillary. If there's plenty of evidence of their wrongdoings I would say lock em up and throw away the key.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Can't wait till they rot in hell.

That shall be a glorious day.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: GuidedKill
I'm sure the usual cast of characters will be along any second to say. What Evidence?? How do you know?/

Sorry to rain on your parade.
www.snopes.com...

Sorry to rain on your parade...But snopes.com and their owners have long been exposed as political hacks that don't get to the bottom of anything.....

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.”

LINK

Here's another source people who use snopes.com may be interested in.....

LINK

Snopes has a strong liberal bias. When it comes to anything political, you can't trust them as a source.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So there was no connection between Ashe/Seng and the Clinton family and a cool 4.5 Million?

Granted it was a couple of days not one, but the connection is there from what I have seen, Snopes does not mention this aspect, it just says what you say "He was not going to testify against Clinton, simply Conspiracy theorists making stuff up!"

Good old snopes!

Do you have another source I can check out that verifies what your saying.

Btw whats your take on Seth Rich, Lucas and Thorn?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It appears that the attacks on Snopes are coming from both sides.
www.snopes.com...

a reply to: gladtobehere

But.... but... Russia.... Drumpfffff.... Russia.... Putin.... holster....Drumpffff REEEEEEEEE!!!!

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: gladtobehere

But.... but... Russia.... Drumpfffff.... Russia.... Putin.... holster....Drumpffff REEEEEEEEE!!!!

BENGHAZIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It appears that the attacks on Snopes are coming from both sides.
www.snopes.com...

And yet you still use them as a viable source to prove a point?? Why exactly?

a reply to: GuidedKill

Because they have been reliable so far?
Have you found a Fox News article yet?
I'm still waiting.

[Edit] - I linked that because it shows that Snopes is balanced.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

Because they have been reliable so far?
Have you found a Fox News article yet?
I'm still waiting.

I linked a video of a Fox News anchor mentioning the Clinton Body Count....Maybe you didn't see that? Does a news anchor talking about it on National TV not hold as much weight as it in print??

a reply to: GuidedKill

I already replied. You're the one who didn't see it.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

"Conspiracy theories"
"InfoWars"

Try again.

This?? This is your reply?? Apparently you didn't click on the embedded video in the link....Let's try another....

Once again you asked for anyone on Fox News mentioning the Clinton Body count....You didn't say anything about where Fox News sourced their story....




LINK

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

"Conspiracy theories"
"InfoWars"

Try again.

This?? This is your reply?? Apparently you didn't click on the embedded video in the link....Let's try another....

Once again you asked for anyone on Fox News mentioning the Clinton Body count....You didn't say anything about where Fox News sourced their story....




LINK

*Facepalm*
A Fox News anchor using InfoWar which is a known conspiracy theory site and been found out to be false many times is not what I asked.
What I asked is if ANY OF THIS IS TRUE then Fox News would not miss an opportunity to cover it.
Clear now?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GuidedKill

Because they have been reliable so far?
Have you found a Fox News article yet?
I'm still waiting.

[Edit] - I linked that because it shows that Snopes is balanced.

Reliable?

Ok here are some links for you to read.

ethicsalarms.com...

dailycaller.com...

medicalkidnap.com...

So, Snopes credibility, already under attack by the political right, is tanking. Their work, possibly legitimately fact-checked, is now potentially questionable on the basis of their fact checkers being unqualified or obviously partisan. Worse, it appears they do not have a solid methodology for fact checking, which does not mesh with their commitment for the IFCN. From Forbes:

At Snopes, fact checking is the core function of an article and thus if multiple people contributed to a fact check, it is surprising that absolutely no mention is made of them, given that at a newspaper all reporters contributing to a story are listed. Not only does this rob those individuals of credit, but perhaps most critically, it makes it impossible for outside entities to audit who is contributing to what fact check and to ensure that fact checkers who self-identify as strongly supportive or against particular topics are not assigned to fact check those topics to prevent the appearance of conflicts of interest or bias.

Also noted by Forbes is the fact that the Snopes writers do not contact the authors of the articles they attempt to fact-check.

doubtfulnews.com...

There are threads on ATS about their lies and partisanship too.

I think they are undoubtedly politically biased, but you can make your own mind up.

a reply to: Grambler

Obviously you didn't read my link.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Grambler

Obviously you didn't read my link.

Oh you are right. The fact that random democraats and republicans have made accusations about them proves they must be credible, no sense linking stories that prove when they were wrong!

You did it!!!!

a reply to: Grambler

Huh? It proves that Snopes is not biased. That's the initial point. Pay attention. And yes it makes them more credible.