Hilary dead

[shunyadragon]

My best friend's older sister told her Hilary had been secretly arrested, tried for treason (and maybe murder), found guilty, and, at her own choice, hanged. All news media, including Fox, OANN, and Newsmax, are engaged in a cover-up of these facts. Any recent pictures or videos supposedly of Hil are actually faked.

We're wondering where an otherwise intelligent lady finds and imbibes this sort of nuttery.

No body buys it except Republicans that claim they do not anything about GAnon.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think checking a few big newspapers is very convincing......

You're working too hard to try to make Hillary's typical lying reasonable in that one instance. She has a pattern of "telling big 'uns" that she thinks nobody is gonna fact-check.

You convinced me that it was a "one-off", not a repeated claim - you should be happy with that.

[Starlight]

The quote makes it abundantly clear that it's highly unlikely that Hilary's parents would have heard anything at all about the not-yet famous mountain climber.

I don't think checking a few big newspapers is very convincing. What if she read a human interest story in a magazine?

Their claim that she can't possibly have seen any article anywhere about a person who was famous, isn't very convincing. "We looked in half a dozen newspapers and didn't happen to see anything" isn't a very high level of evidence. But if you want to be extra-gullible and believe that if a thing wasn't in a few specific newspapers then it can't possibly have been anywhere in any publication or any magazine, fine, whatever.

And your claim he was 'not-yet famous' isn't true. He was famous at that time.

[Starlight]

Anderson Cooper pressed her, saying "But being factually correct is important."

It’s absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, “OK, this was clumsy.” and then I restate what my point was. But it’s— it’s not the same thing as— as the President lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing, at all.

Do you agree that her saying being factually correct is "absolutely important" is quite different to the idea of her your meme that misquoted her was peddling as rejecting the idea of factual correctness?

[Cow Poke]

You give a quote which agrees with what I said, but then claim I'm an Olympic class conclusion jumper? What is wrong with you?

The quote makes it abundantly clear that it's highly unlikely that Hilary's parents would have heard anything at all about the not-yet famous mountain climber.
You were making it sound downright plausible. What is wrong with you?

[rogue06]

Indeed Rogue, it's you who doesn't seem worried about factual accuracy with your misquote of AOC here. Here is her actual quote:

“I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. And whenever I make a mistake, I say, ‘OK, this was clumsy.’ and then I restate what my point was.”

She was expressing annoyance with nitpickers, not saying the truth didn't matter.

However from all the falsehoods you peddle in this forum it's clear that the truth doesn't matter to you on almost any topic.

It appears that the actual quote, according to CNN where it took place is this.

If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

It was in response to criticism about her "misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending" At that was where she stopped. At this point Anderson Cooper pressed her, saying "But being factually correct is important."

Only then did she tack on the rest

It’s absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, “OK, this was clumsy.” and then I restate what my point was. But it’s— it’s not the same thing as— as the President lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing, at all.

CNN, which has largely been pretty friendly in their coverage of her, castigated this response. Chris Cillizza, CNN Politics Reporter and Editor-at-Large, declared "Here’s the thing: Being factually accurate and morally right isn’t an either/or situation. You can do both!"

[Starlight]

You're right it was in Nepal where Hillary met Sir Edmund Hilary and told him she was named after him

Okay, good start, you acknowledge being completely wrong about a key point in your claims.

But then you go back to making a bunch of what appear to be false claims:

but even after getting schooled she continued with the lie. And even after a Clinton spokesperson, Jennifer Hanley, was forced to walk the story back in 2006 she continued.

It resurfaced in a speech in 2008 but her made up claims about being under direct fire in Bosnia

Moreover, it was a "favorite story" back prior to her meeting with Edmund Hilary. One that got told several times when her husband ran for president in '92 and one she would regale folks with back in Little Rock, Arkansas when Bill was still governor. But even after it was exposed and walked back it still would surface from time to time.

No source I have checked agrees with any of this. Ever single sentence of yours here appears to be false as far as I can determine. You appear to be making it all up, like you were the main claim that it happened in New Zealand and upset the New Zealand populace.

And Snopes looked into the angle that her mother might have heard about Edmund prior to that since he had made the news, but could find no indication such stories ever appeared in papers that she would have had access to.

Snopes checked a few US papers and couldn't find anything. But people read magazines, get letters, and have plenty of sources of information other than a the newspapers Snopes happens to have checked. It's pretty much impossible for them to prove that negative.

[Starlight]

The fact-checkers have been unable to find an article about him in American sources at that time, and so assume Hillary's mother probably didn't see a article about him, but there certainly were articles about him at that time in New Zealand so it's not impossible that Hillary's mother somehow saw such an article.

You start off well enough with fact, then veer into total fantasy. From those right wing radicals at Snopes...

However, how likely was Dorothy Rodham, a Chicago housewife, to have seen an article about a New Zealand mountain climber? We performed a comprehensive search of several major American newspapers (including the Chicago Tribune) and found that none of them made any mention of Edmund Hillary whatsoever prior to June 1953, so it’s fair to say that the American media paid him little note prior to his successful assault on Mt. Everest that year.

But you are to be congratulated on your Olympic class conclusion jumping!

You give a quote which agrees with what I said, but then claim I'm an Olympic class conclusion jumper? What is wrong with you?

[Starlight]

morallyright-factuallycorrect.jpg


Just a reminder that it isn't just old Joe who isn't worried about factual accuracy.

Indeed Rogue, it's you who doesn't seem worried about factual accuracy with your misquote of AOC here. Here is her actual quote:

“I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. And whenever I make a mistake, I say, ‘OK, this was clumsy.’ and then I restate what my point was.”

She was expressing annoyance with nitpickers, not saying the truth didn't matter.

However from all the falsehoods you peddle in this forum it's clear that the truth doesn't matter to you on almost any topic.

[Ronson]

If you actually believe 1 Timothy 6:10 (I know I do, literally), that view wouldn't be at all consistent.

1) You are interpreting that as a blanket condemnation. 2) My interpretations of scripture tend not to match that of most Christians.

You can't possibly be a billionaire and not love money. Apparently that's not just evil, but is the root of all love. That's a pretty strong indictment against loving wealth I think I've ever seen in the bible. Does that mean that all billionaires are sado masochists and act like Charles Manson outwardly, no because billionaires are also very smart and shrewd folks and know that isn't a pragmatic way to successfully function in a civil society. As I mentioned before, there are numerous accounts of pedophile rings involving government institutions and wealthy elites with participants no one would ever expected that partook in such activity. Yet if you believe 1 Timothy 6:10, then that shouldn't come as a surprise.

You really seem to be making a lot of assumptions, based on your interpretations of scripture. I base my beliefs on what I experience.

But in any case, again, my complaint about my brother is he is convinced of his beliefs based on sermons by unknown people, and not on evidence.

But I always underscore the RCC in this regard because it's probably the institution you would LEAST suspect something like this to happen... yet it did. And it would have been a totally unreasonable conspiracy theory on the level of the flat earth conspiracy theory had it not been publicly exposed and thoroughly investigated. In many cases, priests worldwide were passing children around like sex objects to each other, forced children to engage in pornography, and in some cases actually had children act out religious roles as they were being sexually abused (and quite possibly or probably this was connected to certain orphanages). I mean, we're talking stuff that goes beyond reason here, and the religious aspect of it makes it exceptionally evil. I point that out because if things like that can happen with a supposedly trusted religious institution (in addition to the attempted cover-up by the higher-ups, including the pope himself), imagine things that have happened (or are happening now) outside of religious institutions.

Again, you are asking me to "imagine" things? Without evidence, it would be easy for me to be suspicious of the RCC without actually believing something. I became a Christian not because of sermons or truthiness, but because of revelation. If not for that, I would still be an atheist. I can't make myself believe in things simply because they sound correct.

Then put that in the theological context of 1 Timothy 6:10 by folks with large sums of wealth and power and who love that wealth and power. IOW, if what the RCC did is unbelievably evil (and we'd all agree it is), imagine what similar situations influenced by "the root of all evil" outside the church could potentially look like. Does that mean all billionaires engage in this activity? Of course not, but in a general sense, when all is said and done, and even though it may be a bit hyperbolic, believing that billionaires are molesting, torturing and killing children for fun ain't that much of a stretch here. Certainly not anywhere near the level of unreason believing Hillary was executed at gitmo.

I think we are derailing this thread. If you wish to continue this discussion, which is mostly theological, we should take it to another board.

[Sparko]

Did you watch any of those redone and colorized movies from 1911 that are on YouTube and posted earlier in this thread?

yeah.

[Sparko]

I used to do that with Coke cans, holding two of them side by side and crossing my eyes until there were three, with the one in the middle in sharp focus.

Did you get a free coke that way?

[rogue06]

yup. but if you can look at them cross-eyed, you don't need the viewer. My last boss had a box of those old stereo photos cards too and I used to like to look at them because it was kind of neat being able to see pictures from the past in 3D. Kinda like being there.

Did you watch any of those redone and colorized movies from 1911 that are on YouTube and posted earlier in this thread?

[Stoic]

Ah, there was an old trick where you did that with index fingers pointing at each other, and as they got closer to each other, you'd see a hot dog in the middle!

I had forgotten about that one!

[Cow Poke]

I used to do that with Coke cans, holding two of them side by side and crossing my eyes until there were three, with the one in the middle in sharp focus.

Ah, there was an old trick where you did that with index fingers pointing at each other, and as they got closer to each other, you'd see a hot dog in the middle!