Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Lol, look at this cuckTrying to compare 4chan fanfiction to e mails that are so fake that Obama sent troops to Russia's border
The best part is if you basically correct anything they say they just shout "triggered" or "you're slipping" or some variation of the two.
They can bring up all the false equivalencies they want, practice hypocrisy on a rampant scale, but the moment they suspect someone else of behaving that way..lol, they lose their minds.
I mean holy shit though, the people who released these even said it couldn't be verified. But this is somehow comparable to wikileaks because..who knows?
Originally posted by Robtard
The point is that yes, you indeed did believe all the emails, even the most ridiculous ones; never once asking for proof. Keep dodging and I'll keep pointing it out, sport.
The point is, though, that Julian Assange didn't come out and say they couldn't be verified before releasing those emails.
So you can keep pointing it out, and I'll keep pointing out the differences in the situation. So it seems we understand each other. Any dodging by the other will be pointed out. So in the future, I don't want to see the fact the people releasing this even said it couldn't be verified not mentioned, you hear?
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you ever imagine that it wouldn't have been in his best interest to let people know that the very nature of his leaks means said leaks/emails can't be verified?
It depends. If he knew they couldn't be verified but said nothing..the potential blowback if people found out would be substantial and could cause wikileaks to be taken even less seriously than if they had come out in the beginning and said they can't be verified. Also I feel the need to point out that just because it would be advantageous to lie in a situation doesn't mean you are necessarily lying. If it meant that then a whole bunch of politicians would be in trouble.
But this still doesn't actually change reality. The situation still is I'm asking for verification over something in which the people who first reported on it said they can't verify it. That's suspicious to me, when even Buzzfeed makes a point of saying that.
Originally posted by Surtur
It depends. If he knew they couldn't be verified but said nothing..the potential blowback if people found out would be substantial and could cause wikileaks to be taken even less seriously than if they had come out in the beginning and said they can't be verified. Also I feel the need to point out that just because it would be advantageous to lie in a situation doesn't mean you are necessarily lying. If it meant that then a whole bunch of politicians would be in trouble.But this still doesn't actually change reality. The situation still is I'm asking for verification over something in which the people who first reported on it said they can't verify it. That's suspicious to me, when even Buzzfeed makes a point of saying that.
No, it doesn't depend.
The point is and has always been that you have double standards and will believe any story; no matter how ridiculous if it's anti-Clinton/Democrats/Liberal, what are anathema to you.
Change these ridiculous cloak-and-dagger and Golden Shower stories to be about Clinton and you'll demand that they're true unless proven false. You've done this.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, it doesn't depend.
Lol yes, whether someone would willingly choose to cover up a story couldn't be verified does depend on the circumstances. You have to compare the gain with the potential loss.
The point is and has always been that you have double standards and will believe any story; no matter how ridiculous if it's anti-Clinton/Democrats/Liberal, what are anathema to you.Change these ridiculous cloak-and-dagger and Golden Shower stories to be about Clinton and you'll demand that they're true unless proven false. You've done this.
Except no, the point is I don't accept stories that boil down to mere claims, and whose supplier says they can't be verified.
If Julian Assange came out, said he had emails which showed (insert shady thing) about the DNC, I wouldn't believe him. I'd want to see the emails, I'd want to know they exist.
When someone comes out and right off the bat says this can't be verified..then I am not going to give it any credence until it is.
I also do love how whenever I attempt to point out your hypocritical bullshit and double standards I'm either deflecting or triggered. But when you decide to do it? It suddenly becomes okay lol.
Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "Robtard said I often use double standards today so I'm going to say he does." -Surtur
You routinely tried to draw silly comparisons and were called on it. You are now attempting to draw attention away from it by implying that since I accused you of something you accused me of...it means what I have said is not valid. Despite both of us having called each other hypocrites many times in the past, but I guess you called dibs on it today?
Originally posted by Surtur
You routinely tried to draw silly comparisons and were called on it.You are now attempting to draw attention away from it by implying that since I accused you of something you accused me of...it means what I have said is not valid. Despite both of us having called each other hypocrites many times in the past, but I guess you called dibs on it today?
Incorrect.
The word(s) of the day is "double standard"; not hypocrisy, sport. Keep up or just stop talking.
ps You ***** and moan a lot
I think he could have a mental breakdown. I've heard that he doesn't get a lot of sleep which isn't going to do any favors for his already strained mental capacity. Plus urine doesn't have the necessary vitamins and minerals that the mind needs to operate and peak capacity, so that might be a problem since that seems to be his drink of choice.
I think he's likely to get himself impeached before any mental breakdown occurs.