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

a reply to: Grambler

Zuckerberg is going to buy out Snopes.

You heard it from me, first.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Grambler

Zuckerberg is going to buy out Snopes.

You heard it from me, first.

Zuck Boy can suck my balls.

a reply to: elementalgrove

Ahhh sorry man, I'm not really big on defending things I never said. You'll have to find somebody else to play that game with.

If you didn't pay enough attention to my comment to glean my "take" on Rich because you were in a rush to a) make things up and pretend I said them b) flame Snopes or c) both, that's your problem.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I saw what you said about Rich and if that is all the thought you put into the circumstances surrounding his death I will take you at that, figured you would have more to back up your skepticism.

I am not asking you to defend anything, the information that I have seen is that Ashe was going to be in court as a defendant for corruption tying him to Ng and 4.5 Million that they illegally funneled to the Clinton Family.

You simply stated exactly what Snopes said, so I figured that was the source of your position.

Problem!? I thoroughly enjoy our discourse

Any thoughts on Lucas and Thorn?

What I find odd is that I can't open the big document to scope it out.

Every time I try it KILLS my web browser

Lol, even web browsers are not safe from the body count.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
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.

How does it prove that?

because random internet people form all sides think they are biased toward the other side, that is enough to prove they are not biased and ignore evidence that shows this?

By the same token, and can find Republicans and democrats that think that Fox News is biased for the other side, therefore they have no bias too, right?

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
What I find odd is that I can't open the big document to scope it out.

Every time I try it KILLS my web browser

Lol, even web browsers are not safe from the body count.

You're on tablet? It's probably because it's a huge file.

BTW I love your screen name. Reminds me of M.A.S.H.

a reply to: Grambler

The initial claim was that the site is biased to the left so therefore it is not reliable.
And of course sites can be wrong about few things. Fox News make mistakes all the time so does that mean they are not reliable and "biased" (their motto is "fair and balanced").
BTW I do not take Snopes at face value. I always check out the sources just like I do with any other news sites, even CNN.

can't Trump just drone them?

a reply to: elementalgrove

The claim is that Rich was on his way to meet with the FBI.

At four am. On a Sunday.

The claim is that he was killed by DNC operatives/Clinton operatives/somebody who wanted to shut him up.

Yet they left him alive at least long enough for police officers to note that he was both alive and conscious when they arrived on scene. He was alive for about 90 minutes after he was attacked, whomever it was that attacked him.

I'm not saying Rich was killed in a robbery gone wrong, but those two above facts alone certainly raise an eyebrow about the alternative story as well. One would think a hitman that's killing somebody to shut them up would y'know...make sure they were actually dead. Never having been a hitman I can't state that definitively, but I feel like it's a pretty rational thing for a hitman to do.

And yes, you are asking me to defend something I never said. When you respond to something I said with "so there wasn't blah blah blah?" you're presenting your question as if it rebuts something I said. It's irrelevant to what I said. I pointed out holes in the meme and nothing more.

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.

A Snopes article proving Snopes is balanced? Ha...

I caught them not factchecking their own BS once...and neglecting to report relevant & material information: Link

And Snopes failed to own up to it when I notified them.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Because they have been reliable so far?

Really? How much unreliability are they allowed to have before they are no longer considered reliable?

For example, in IAMTAT's thread regarding MetroCare, snopes produced a lease by MetroCare which is of dubious legitimacy:

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: IAMTAT

That Snopes piece has been bugging me.

It's that lease that Snopes so conveniently dug up to show Metrocare Home Services leased some office equipment at the address of Chelsea's condo IN 1991.

I think we can toss that out as not legitimate. Let's look at it again:

BUT...for the actual corporate history for 'Metrocare Home Services' at the NYS Corporation and Business Entity Database, search at this link for them:

Link to Search for Corporate Filing stats

(Search for 'Metrocare Home Services,' it will not allow me to post a direct link from here.)

Anyway, it shows that, while 'Metrocare Home Services' filed as a corporate entity in 1988....

...FROM 1988 TO 1993 IT WAS ACTUALLY NAMED 'FAMILY AIDES METROPOLITAN SERVICES, INC.' THEY DID NOT FILE TO RENAME THE COMPANY 'METROCARE HOME SERVICES' UNTIL SEPTEMBER OF 1993:

So, there you have it...'Metrocare Home Services' was NOT operating under that name in 1991, when the lease that Snopes published says they were leasing office equipment under that name. Family Aides would not become Metrocare Home Services for ANOTHER TWO YEARS.

Fact: Metrocare Home Services did not exist in 1991...and it is very, very curious that the document Snopes posted even exists.

So, snopes "evidence" is a lease dated 1991 from a company that didn't exist until 1993.

Tell me how that works?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I just posted that before you J&C! Great minds and all!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then Fox News is not balanced and reliable. At least CNN has made many corrections to their articles. Fox News rarely does when it's been pointed out that some of their articles are false or misleading.
Anyway as I have stated I don't take Snopes at face value. It has been reliable to ME so far. I always check the sources. Of course if I see something that is false on Snopes I would point it out.
All this debate about Snopes seems to be an attempt to distract us from the OP, which has never been proven to be true. Fox News never covered this (one pointed out that a woman reporter mentioned it on Fox News channel but that's from InfoWars).

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Ok, FOX is not balanced.

I am not a FOX viewer or reader so you would know better than me if you are a FOX viewer or reader.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh I always read news on both sides. And I always check the sources. And the article on Snopes about Clinton's alleged body count seems to be spot on if you care to really read. It even pointed out that it has already been done way before Clinton all the way to JFK with all the people associated with him who died in "mysterous circumstances". Same tactics.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't care to read it.

I can tell some of the names/deaths/claims are dubious to link to the Clintons. But then the list also says that, when appropriate -- for the most part, anyway.

I'd also add a death to be suspicious about, if it was my graphic.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'd also add a death to be suspicious about, if it was my graphic.

ooh, ooh, ooh, pick me!

I'll take Pia Farrankopf for $1000, Alex.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of course news sites are not 100% reliable. Some are more reliable than others. Some are more biased than others. There's no denying that. But anyway don't you find it odd that there are not much information on Clinton's alleged body count? Not even Fox News would touch this with a 10 ft pole. Don't you find that odd? I am sure the "info-graphic" will appear within 4 years connecting Trump to "mysterious deaths" and all the alt-right would be coming in screaming in threads about that, telling us how such and such are not reliable and unproven.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well, that's another one. I was actually thinking of Monica Petersen.