Fake News Fake News

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Still no evidence. Just more flimsy reasoning why you blindly trust something that came from the internet without evidence supporting it. Plus an ad hominem.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Still no evidence. Just more flimsy reasoning why you blindly trust something that came from the internet without evidence supporting it. Plus an ad hominem.

What am I supposed to be providing evidence for? I'm merely swatting away your ineffectual attempt at discrediting Wikileaks.

What ad hom also? I asked you stop acting dense and told you that I thought you were trolling (which is a verb, not a noun).

Clearly because I know you are not dense and can afford meaningful discussion, but are choosing not to in order to get a rise out of people. What would you call that?

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

What is "meaningful" to me is not trusting something because you want it to be true. There is no evidence linking Seth Rich to wikileaks. This doesn't change no matter how trustworthy you find them. I repeat NO EVIDENCE. When does your desire to deny ignorance trump your complacency bias and get you to actually research these things instead of blindly trust?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Wikileaks is above reproach. If you disagree, find me something fake they have published.

I disagree. If WaPo cannot have credibility for posting anonymous sources then Wikileaks doesn't either. I notice you didn't post any evidence backing up these claims. Just that you blindly believe a source on the internet.

The DNC did not argue against the authenticity of the emails.
As you may recall, a couple of DNC people lost their jobs because of the content of the emails.

a reply to: BlueAjah
This thread isn't about emails. It's about wikileaks connection with Seth Rich. Proving the authenticity of the emails doesn't mean that this connection is real. Stop deflecting and provide the evidence already.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Wikileaks is above reproach. If you disagree, find me something fake they have published.

I disagree. If WaPo cannot have credibility for posting anonymous sources then Wikileaks doesn't either. I notice you didn't post any evidence backing up these claims. Just that you blindly believe a source on the internet.

The DNC did not argue against the authenticity of the emails.
As you may recall, a couple of DNC people lost their jobs because of the content of the emails.

They chose to be honest. Perhaps the current administration is trying a different approach.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

What is "meaningful" to me is not trusting something because you want it to be true. There is no evidence linking Seth Rich to wikileaks. This doesn't change no matter how trustworthy you find them. I repeat NO EVIDENCE. When does your desire to deny ignorance trump your complacency bias and get you to actually research these things instead of blindly trust?

I haven't given my opinion on the Seth Rich case.

All I have done is pointed out that you are wrong about Wikileaks anonymity being in any way, shape or form comparable to the WaPo style of anonymity.

Unbunch thoughs panties and deal with it

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Wikileaks is above reproach. If you disagree, find me something fake they have published.

I disagree. If WaPo cannot have credibility for posting anonymous sources then Wikileaks doesn't either. I notice you didn't post any evidence backing up these claims. Just that you blindly believe a source on the internet.

The DNC did not argue against the authenticity of the emails.
As you may recall, a couple of DNC people lost their jobs because of the content of the emails.

They chose to be honest. Perhaps the current administration is trying a different approach.

If you lie, cheat and steal, the get caught out red-handed, then ignore the evidence and quietly make an example of a couple of people, does that really count as choosing to be honest?

You have low standards.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I can't believe you're still pushing this Russian hacking garbage even after being told there was no collusion by multiple people. Time for you to step away the internet for awhile before you become more senile.

a reply to: Luceononuro

You're hilarious.
Yeah I'm pushing this Russian hacking garbage.
Give me a freaking break. Everyone has accepted it was the Russians except a few idiots.

And umm honey pie the hacking and Russian collusion are two connected but separate issues.
Everyone knows the Russians hacked the DNC. Everybody even trump...
The question is what did trumps team know about it. And that's the collusion end where there is a question.
So thanks for trying to shame my knowledge by revealing your lack.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it does boggle the mind

I believe the real question is: Why would Kim Dotcom wait so long on this information, and why would he politicize it to the point of putting a picture of Donald Trump doing a fist pump in the infographic?

And for some reason he needs to come to the US to release it? He knows that'll never happen. It really looks to me like he's just marketing off of the tragedy.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The Russians hacked the DNC.
Grow up. This is stupid B.S..

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

a reply to: oddnutz

What lie are you telling yourself then?
your statement is simply stupid.
The Russians hacked the DNC.
Get over it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You must have a very short memory then. I clearly remember you jumping on this bandwagon and parroting the fake news after it broke out on MSNBC.

A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

a reply to: Gin

I must . You clearly remember something I don't. How about you go ahead and find those posts because I never saw that story and never commented on it.
I guess you have to lie to prove a point.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah, how about no. Plenty of people here have shown you evidence of something you've been completely wrong at, and you have willfully ignored those messages. So no, not going to waste time on doing something you'll just ignore in end.