Wow, did you read any of that. Ctl-f "Clinton " in that wiki article. Zero.
Judicial Watch (great source) is trying crazy hard in that article to suggest that judicial watch is saying there is a connection but they seem have nothing. Serious, they reference themselfs. It reads like a twelve year old with a clear bias wrote it. He was governor at the time. If you want to claim more, show real evidence. Your feeling don’t count, snowflake.
Which came thru Arkansas while Clinton was governor.
Yup, I said that.
It reads like a twelve year old with a clear bias wrote it. He was governor at the time.
Ah ha! Read what I wrote again:
Which came thru Arkansas while Clinton was governor.
And yours again:
It reads like a twelve year old with a clear bias wrote it. He was governor at the time.
Do you see that? Do ya? We both said he was governor, but mine ends there and yours goes into some lazy emotional tirade where you wanted to show the internet how cool you are. So you put words in my mouth and argued against a stance that wasn’t mine, snowflake. Bravo! (It’s called a Strawman Fallacy, btw)
If you want to claim more, show real evidence.
Oh my sweet summer child when I want to make a claim, you bet your clutched pearls I will.
Now, that being said, if that actually was my stance, you were arguing disingenuously by cherry picking. You gave attention to one source while ignoring the others and claiming your entire made up stance for me was false because you thought you found something fallacious. That is a logical fallacy as well.
You’re affirming that your statement regarding Bill Clinton is a meaningless inclusion.
Then why include it in your comment at all?
I’d love to know!
Please tell me why you thought a statement that strung unrelated pieces of information together without establishing a relationship between them or drawing a conclusion about their relationship was a worthwhile contribution to the discourse.
When pressed, you linked to sources without elaborating your position or reason for linking to them.
Was that intentional? Did you mean to give any person who might engage with you a completely blank slate, in which you could then simply accuse them of arguing against something you had not actually asserted?
Bait them into making a straw man argument, and insinuate that validates the premise you still have not stated?
I am curious how this conversation thread would have gone if you had actually stated your premise so others could dismiss it as its own logical fallacy: correlation is not causation.
But noooo, I had to read through someone putting forth genuine effort to call you on your nonsense while you offered low quality, dishonest responses that use the same sort of shifty rhetorical techniques that “journalists” employ on rage-bait news-otainment TV programs.
And then - after the self-adulatory statements, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and pointless insults - you claim the links you shared which do not support your implied premise are proof that you have adequately supported your not-claims? Weak.
Wow, did you read any of that. Ctl-f "Clinton " in that wiki article. Zero.
Judicial Watch (great source) is trying crazy hard in that article to suggest that judicial watch is saying there is a connection but they seem have nothing. Serious, they reference themselfs. It reads like a twelve year old with a clear bias wrote it. He was governor at the time. If you want to claim more, show real evidence. Your feeling don’t count, snowflake.
Read what I wrote originally, dipshit.
Yup, I said that.
Ah ha! Read what I wrote again:
And yours again:
Do you see that? Do ya? We both said he was governor, but mine ends there and yours goes into some lazy emotional tirade where you wanted to show the internet how cool you are. So you put words in my mouth and argued against a stance that wasn’t mine, snowflake. Bravo! (It’s called a Strawman Fallacy, btw)
Oh my sweet summer child when I want to make a claim, you bet your clutched pearls I will.
Now, that being said, if that actually was my stance, you were arguing disingenuously by cherry picking. You gave attention to one source while ignoring the others and claiming your entire made up stance for me was false because you thought you found something fallacious. That is a logical fallacy as well.
You’re affirming that your statement regarding Bill Clinton is a meaningless inclusion.
Then why include it in your comment at all?
I’d love to know!
Please tell me why you thought a statement that strung unrelated pieces of information together without establishing a relationship between them or drawing a conclusion about their relationship was a worthwhile contribution to the discourse.
When pressed, you linked to sources without elaborating your position or reason for linking to them.
Was that intentional? Did you mean to give any person who might engage with you a completely blank slate, in which you could then simply accuse them of arguing against something you had not actually asserted?
Bait them into making a straw man argument, and insinuate that validates the premise you still have not stated?
I am curious how this conversation thread would have gone if you had actually stated your premise so others could dismiss it as its own logical fallacy: correlation is not causation.
But noooo, I had to read through someone putting forth genuine effort to call you on your nonsense while you offered low quality, dishonest responses that use the same sort of shifty rhetorical techniques that “journalists” employ on rage-bait news-otainment TV programs.
And then - after the self-adulatory statements, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and pointless insults - you claim the links you shared which do not support your implied premise are proof that you have adequately supported your not-claims? Weak.