*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1200 on: April 09, 2023, 08:38:49 PM »
Oh no, she laughed about how inaccurate polygraphs are or how she had to get info from some guy.
Heaven forbid!
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1201 on: April 09, 2023, 09:03:37 PM »
Snopes regularly lies. For example, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotape
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/
Where in the Snopes article did they try to deny that Clintion defended a child rapist or that she laughed about certain aspects of the case?  Seems to me that your link is just a different interpretation of the facts presented.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3422
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1202 on: April 09, 2023, 09:45:41 PM »
After reading that article twice, I still don't understand exactly what Snopes was supposedly lying about. It's mostly just splitting hairs about wording choices and weird assertions like this:

Quote
Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.

Ridiculous.

How is that ridiculous? It's clearly what happened, and an entirely relevant point to make when the meme it was responding to was making out that Hillary was pleased or amused by a child rapist being acquitted.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1203 on: April 09, 2023, 11:19:57 PM »
The lie is right here:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Quote from: Snopes


...



She is clearly laughing about the case there. She defended a child rapist, got him a lighter plea deal, and laughed about how he passed the polygraph, which destroyed her faith in polygraphs.

The Snopes argument is goalpost moving and making absurdist arguments without evidence that she wasn't laughing because she believed he was guilty, and was laughing about a different aspect of the case:

Quote from: Snopes
She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)

How does Snopes know what she was laughing about? What evidence is there that Hillary wasn't laughing because she thought he was guilty and was actually laughing about something else?

Regardless, what she was laughing about in the case is irrelevant to the fact that she was laughing about the case.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 12:02:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1204 on: April 10, 2023, 12:23:45 AM »
hillary clinton caught LAUGHING this is epic

just out of curiosity, is the implication supposed to be that she thinks the sexual abuse of children is funny?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1205 on: April 10, 2023, 12:54:32 AM »
Lots of interesting twists and turns in the Shelton case. All is not what it seems to appear. Sheltons recollections are a little all over the place - Part of the reason why the defendant got the plea deal to begin with. Documented in this WaPo article from 2016:

The facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton rape case

One bit here regarding the actual "laughing" audio tapes in question recorded for the unpublished interview with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed. Take note of Reed's assessment in the Update:

Shelton’s ire had risen with the 2014 discovery of previously unpublished audio recordings of Clinton discussing the case in the mid-1980s with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published.

In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him.

[Update: Reed in an interview published Oct. 12 denied that Clinton was laughing at Shelton. “As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."]


I'm going to go with the guy, the reporter/interviewer, who was actually there and his assessment rather than some rando guy's blog opinion with a site called "Ethics Alarms", tagline, An ethics commentary blog on current events and issues.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1206 on: April 10, 2023, 01:01:59 AM »
That interviewer isn't denying that she was laughing at the case. That is an argument about what she was specifically laughing about in regards to the case. That she was laughing in relation to the case and what she was laughing about are a different discussions altogether.

Whatever it was about "He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs." she apparently found funny. Arguing about what she specifically found funny is a different discussion than her laughing about the case. Again, this is goal post moving. The claim was that she laughed about the case, which she did, regardless of whatever inane argument you want to make about what she was laughing about.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 01:23:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4209
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1207 on: April 10, 2023, 01:17:21 AM »
.
Again, this is goal post moving.

Not really. The insinuation was that she was laughing about the fact that she got a child rapist off (really a lighter sentence, but it's easy to assume otherwise if you don't know better, and it's not the case anyway). That's not the case, and whatever you think about the semantics of it it's a significant distinction that's worth making clear.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1208 on: April 10, 2023, 01:54:07 AM »
Laughing at "He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs." to me implies that she found the idea of her guilty child molester client passing a polygraph to be funny.

It is impossible to know what she was "really" laughing at. But the claim as it was written was that she laughed about the case, which she clearly did. The verdict should be True with an asterisk that leftist liberals may justify it as her laughing at something that doesn't make her look like a callous fiend.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 02:01:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1209 on: April 10, 2023, 01:55:36 AM »
Again, this is goal post moving. The claim was that she laughed about the case, which she did, regardless of whatever inane argument you want to make about what she was laughing about.

Speaking of moving the goal posts, here are the actual claims that the Snopes article is fact checking:
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1210 on: April 10, 2023, 02:10:54 AM »
The details of that are generally true. Snopes goes on of a leftist rambling rampage to nitpick about the terminology used. "Volunteered" vs. "appointed and accepted", Clinton "knew" he was guilty vs. Clinton "believed" he was guilty. Clinton laughed about it vs. she was laughing about something tangential that doesn't make her look bad.

Clearly, this is more of an editorial site than a "fact check" site. Snopes internet editors interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why Snopes is a bad source.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 02:40:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1211 on: April 10, 2023, 07:13:07 AM »
The details of that are generally true. Snopes goes on of a leftist rambling rampage to nitpick about the terminology used. "Volunteered" vs. "appointed and accepted",

Wouldn't that make the meme nitpicking as well? Because, you know, "volunteering" is really the same thing as "appointed", right?

I don't think that's nitpicking at all. The assertion is that she willfully "volunteered" for the case which has a connotation that she gleefully raised her hand to defend a 42 year old rapist of a 12 year old girl.


Flip the script. What if the statement read:
     
To me this reads as because the defendant demanded a female lawyer as opposed the male he was originally assigned, the judge selected her from a list of female lawyers who defend low income defendants, much like how Public Defenders are assigned cases. So what? Happens all the time. A totally different connotation.           

And specifically as to the "appointed" and especially the "accepted", this from the WaPo article:

(The defendant) asked the judge to replace his court-appointed male attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment — which the prosecutor in the case confirmed to CNN.

From CNN:

Mahlon Gibson (prosecuting attorney in the case) told CNN on Wednesday the then 27-year-old Hillary Rodham (now Clinton) was "appointed" by the judge in the case, even though she voiced reservations...

Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.
According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”


Clinton "knew" he was guilty vs. Clinton "believed" he was guilty. Clinton laughed about it vs. she was laughing about something tangential that doesn't make her look bad.

If anything, seems like you're nitpicking the nitpicking. I'm pretty sure defense attorneys/public defenders often times know and believe their client is guilty. More from CNN: "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

Clearly, this is more of an editorial site than a "fact check" site. Snopes internet editors interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why Snopes is a bad source.

And clearly the blogger you cited interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why the blog 'Ethics Alarms' is a bad source.

Snopes' "interpretation" seems to be correct based upon the reporter, Roy Reed, who was actually there interviewing her, "As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1212 on: April 10, 2023, 07:49:44 PM »
If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it sounds like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.

During the Nuremberg trials being told to do something immoral wasn't an acceptable excuse for the Nazis to avoid justice. And unlike the Nazi situation, there wasn't a potential SS Officer holding a gun to Clinton's head to force her to do immoral things. She willingly did this, and she is fully culpable here.

Quote from: stack
If anything, seems like you're nitpicking the nitpicking. I'm pretty sure defense attorneys/public defenders often times know and believe their client is guilty. More from CNN: "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

Her responsibility as a lawyer isn't legally binding. No one is physically forcing lawyers to represent anyone. Clinton was not going to go to jail if she refused to represent or face physical harm. She had options available to her. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

Quote from: stack
And clearly the blogger you cited interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why the blog 'Ethics Alarms' is a bad source.

Snopes' "interpretation" seems to be correct based upon the reporter, Roy Reed, who was actually there interviewing her, "As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."

I didn't think Clinton was laughing that the rapist was going free either. I thought Clinton was laughing because her rapist client passed the polygraph test. She also appears to acknowledge that she believed he was guilty with the "forever destroyed my faith in polygraph" line.

Again, the claim Snopes was trying to rebut was that Clinton laughed about the case:



So, she did laugh about something in relation to the case. No one is even denying that. Snopes is lying here.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2023, 02:25:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4209
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1213 on: April 10, 2023, 08:11:21 PM »
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1214 on: April 10, 2023, 08:16:31 PM »
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1215 on: April 10, 2023, 08:18:00 PM »
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Maybe we should just rename it to "Democrats"?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Online Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4209
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1216 on: April 10, 2023, 08:30:12 PM »
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.

It must be nice living in a fantasy world. I didn't say I don't like it. I contributed to the discussion. It is a fine discussion about how Hillary Clinton is a cold bitch, something I don't even disagree with. But it is about Hillary Clinton, and this thread is supposed to be about Joe Biden, and now we have a full page of posts that don't even mention his name, or have anything to do with him.

I just feel like we got lost in the weeds a bit.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 08:32:56 PM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Magicalus

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1217 on: April 10, 2023, 09:01:54 PM »


Let's just do some quick analysis here. Biden has announced he's planning to run for president. It was later announced that it will not soon be announced.

There is no contradiction here.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 09:07:44 PM by Magicalus »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1218 on: April 10, 2023, 09:10:17 PM »
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
That's right, and you haven't provided anything to support it either.  You really shouldn't keep doubling down on claims that you can't support.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #1219 on: April 10, 2023, 09:59:00 PM »
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?
Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.

It must be nice living in a fantasy world. I didn't say I don't like it. I contributed to the discussion. It is a fine discussion about how Hillary Clinton is a cold bitch, something I don't even disagree with. But it is about Hillary Clinton, and this thread is supposed to be about Joe Biden, and now we have a full page of posts that don't even mention his name, or have anything to do with him.

I just feel like we got lost in the weeds a bit.
Yeah, you offered snopes into it. Tom pointed out snopes lies, employs plagiarists, and is generally considered by thinking people to be a for shit rag, loved by liberals.

When snopes writes something, it is generally a bunch of crap, just like their denial of Ashley Biden afraid to shower while Brandon is around.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2023, 10:13:30 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.