TexasCHLforum.com

remanifest wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14GvS9O0zhY

Big surprise. Video has been blocked for copyright grounds!

Expect more blocks&restrictions after 10/1, but that's a whole different topic....

Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

dale blanker wrote:Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

Apparently the article on Snopes was written by:

Dan Evon is a Chicago-based writer and longtime truth enthusiast. His work has appeared somewhere, and he earned a degree at the University of His Choosing. His exploration of Internet truth has been supported by grants from the Facebook Drug Task Force.

Odd description.

dale blanker wrote:Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

That is hardly a convincing refutation of the original premise by Snopes.

Whether it is actually true or not, we'll never know as the people involved, the only ones who actually know, will be marinated in sheep poop before they confirm it.

Is it plausible? Of course. Plausible deniability? Don't leave home without it!

I don't know if Hillary was giving hand signals or not. However, the Snopes blurb does nothing to legitimately refute the claim it was. It was obvious they were both working hard to try and look in calm and in under self control, in other words presidential. I can see how her giving a hand signal to Lester in order to get him to give her the microphone so she wouldn't have to try and talk over or interrupt Donald would be a viable way of doing this. Whether or not that is what was happening, I have no idea. Would I say she and Lester are above that, absolutely not.

Putting too much credence into what snopes publishes could make one look pretty silly.

JALLEN wrote:

dale blanker wrote:Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

That is hardly a convincing refutation of the original premise by Snopes.

Whether it is actually true or not, we'll never know as the people involved, the only ones who actually know, will be marinated in sheep poop before they confirm it.

Is it plausible? Of course. Plausible deniability? Don't leave home without it!

Yeah, that obviously liberal rant pretty well illustrates my issue with snopes. They don't do anything to actually disprove the theory but declare it busted anyway. All while talking about how well Hitlery did in the debate. I'm not saying I think she wore an earpiece or used hand signals or whatever else to cheat. I haven't seen compelling evidence that she did. However, I haven't seen anything to convince me she definitely didn't. It's not like you're going to make a case for cheating going against her character or anything. I mean, seriously, we're talking about Clinton here.

JALLEN wrote:

dale blanker wrote:Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

That is hardly a convincing refutation of the original premise by Snopes.

Whether it is actually true or not, we'll never know as the people involved, the only ones who actually know, will be marinated in sheep poop before they confirm it.

Is it plausible? Of course. Plausible deniability? Don't leave home without it!

Ok, let's not be bothered with common sense...

The conclusion at Snopes seems reasonable:
"This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator — as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often."

In other words, the signals weren't necessary anyway and so the accusation simply doesn't make sense.

dale blanker wrote:
The conclusion at Snopes seems reasonable:
"This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator — as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often."

In other words, the signals weren't necessary anyway and so the accusation simply doesn't make sense.

I addressed that in my post above using common sense.

mojo84 wrote:I don't know if Hillary was giving hand signals or not. However, the Snopes blurb does nothing to legitimately refute the claim it was. It was obvious they were both working hard to try and look in calm and in under self control, in other words presidential. I can see how her giving a hand signal to Lester in order to get him to give her the microphone so she wouldn't have to try and talk over or interrupt Donald would be a viable way of doing this. Whether or not that is what was happening, I have no idea. Would I say she and Lester are above that, absolutely not.

Putting too much credence into what snopes publishes could make one look pretty silly.

That hadn't even occurred to me, but you make a very good point. Several analyses I have read of the debate claimed that it was far less about what was said, but how they presented themselves. Trying to manipulate that through cheating certainly sounds like the Secretary of Satan. Wait, did I spell that wrong?

http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who ... nd-snopes/

EXPOSED – Guess Who is REALLY Behind Snopes.com?

Those who have been at least partially aware of the goings on of the Internet has, no doubt, come across the website Snopes.com, a self-proclaimed “myth-busting” site. At its genesis, Snopes popped the bubbles surrounding urban legends and, at times even provided some accurate insight into the stories behind those urban legends. If nothing else, it was mildly entertaining. That was then.

Chief among the Progressive stalwarts at Snopes is “main political fact-checker,” Kim Lacapria, according to the Daily Caller. Ironically, or not, prior to her position as political fact-checker for Snopes, Lacapria was wrote for the Inquisitr, a blog with less than stellar reputation.

Today, Snopes has turned into a sycophantic political surrogate for the Progressive Left, the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton. Fancying itself as a “political fact-checker,” it has become completely unreliable, existing as an excuse making machine for the morally relativistic and a propaganda apparatus fueled by unfounded accusations and political talking points; talking points seemingly crafted and issued directly from the Progressive minions of Chicago.

To say Lacapria exhibited “clear partisanship” while writing for Inquisitr would be to ignore her writing sounded more like that of a Democrat speechwriter than that of an objective journalist.

Lacapria violated the very first rule of journalistic ethics in describing herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. To stake out a position with such fervor is to admit there exists not an objective bone in her body, which, by that very fact, makes her disqualified – ethically – from “fact-checking” anything political.

While with Inquisitr, she routinely disparaged the whole of the TEA Party Movement, calling those who took to the streets to protest over-taxation and over-reaching government as “TEAhadists.” Lacapria’s comparison of the TEA Party to the fascists of Islam, of course, is a signature trait of the caustically Left.

“Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth – or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.”

It would appear the future “fact-checker” missed the Congressional Budget Office and General Accounting Office reports on the cost of welfare fraud. In food stamp and EBT card fraud alone, the US government is scammed out of tens of millions of dollars – if not hundreds of millions – annually. That’s a pretty big “fact” to miss for a “fact-checker.”

Exposing her frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for Republicans and Conservatives, Lacapria went so far as to accuse the Bush administration of “criminal negligence” in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Of course, she provided no evidence to support her accusation, a typical tactic of those Progressives who manufacture false narratives and deceptive memes to advance the Leftist cause.

Lacapria has manufactured, nuanced, and spun facts about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, Omar Mateem not “really being” a Democrat despite his official party registration, and Facebook being an above-board and non-manipulative news source.

But Lacapria simply joins the very small crew at Snopes who have existed as bias from the start. David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and proprietors of Snopes, have been found on many occasions to have “erred” on the side of the truth best benefiting the Left’s narrative on issues. The very fact the website quotes heavily from the self-identified Left-leaning New York Times illustrates an out-of-the-box bias from the start.

To wit, just as with any online “resource,” you should do your own homework when it comes to fact-checking. Most often it isn’t that hard to divine the truth and you will be better informed with first-source information for doing so. In a world where everyone believes their opinions to be valid, all of us are forced to do our due diligence in the quest for the truth.

2farnorth wrote:

remanifest wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14GvS9O0zhY

Big surprise. Video has been blocked for copyright grounds!

https://youtu.be/Ms0JGQaVCDE

JALLEN wrote:

2farnorth wrote:

remanifest wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14GvS9O0zhY

Big surprise. Video has been blocked for copyright grounds!

https://youtu.be/Ms0JGQaVCDE

Nice find! Thank you. I just downloaded it and saved it to Google Drive for archival purposes :D

http://www.subjectpolitics.com/election ... t-exposed/

I just found this. Make up your own mind.