It was a Party For the popes first visit to the country/David brocks book party.
It took place On September 24th, 2015 The pope part was sometime between 2:00-4:00pm... The David Brock party started at 5:00.
here's the email proving the David brock book party part. Including the Hosts' The time, and Place.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56681
Here is the Invitation proving that.
The attachment Is the Invitation. I haven't seen that information posted. Correct me If I'm wrong.
There's way more that goes with this... But this place is such a shit show I would never post it.. I'm just interested to see the response. From the retards.
▼ Millennial_Falcon
What I was flairing as debunked was the claim that there is a photo of the Pope at a party with Podesta et al. Would you like me to have left it unflaired? I was not addressing the question of whether the Pope might have actually been there (not to mention you yourself aren't supplying any evidence that he was), so please don't give me grief for a completely appropriate flair.
▼ FuckUredditFuckuSpez
Based ON what you just said right here... I understand your reasoning better...> but what you just said right here, Is not what took place... I Don't give a fuck what you do, I can't stand this place...
But There's literally zero situation in which you're justified in debunking the post... I AGREE THAT IT is probably card board... even though I think it looks real. But what are you debunking it based on ? Like how do you know that Is not that pope?
But fuck it- Lets say it is 100% card board.... You still can not debunk the claim behind the post... You simply can't. If you can, Please enlighten me... You can flair it whatever the fuck you want, And probably make an argument for using that flair...
But if you flair something debunked. you better as fuck better be able to debunk it... Don't you understand that?
But Unfortunately for you it gets even worse.... Not only can you not put your finger on single piece of evidence to substantiate your debunking of the claim.
I gave you a fuck ton of evidence to suggest that OPs Title was in fact, Very fucking plausible... .
now here's where it gets Ironic. OP's Post is weak... It doesn't Reasonably Justify His claim... Its my information that justifies his claim. but Again, YOU DEBUNKED HIS CLAIM WHEN YOU HAD NO REASON TO DEBUNK HIS CLAIM. DEBUNK HAS A VERY SPECIFIC MEANING. IT MEANS STOP WASTING YOUR TIME LOOKING- IT DIDNT HAPPEN.
I
Thats what you fucking Said. As the fucking leader of this forum you said, THE POPE DID NOT FUCKING MEET WITH TONY PODESTA ON HIS BIRTHDAY. I understand not wanting to contribute to misinformation....but No matter how unlikely you think that is... you don't get to debunk it, Unless you can debunk it.
But again, The post was titled;
That was the title Of the Post.... You marked it debunked. The title Of the Post was Not "This is a photo Of the pope at Podestas"
The Photo was one part to the post.... The post that clearly stated "The pope attended Tony Podesta's 72nd birthday Pizza party"
Based on completely different evidence... the evidence that I posted in my response to you... The pope Very well could have, based on the evidence I provided... There is no evidence that contradicts any of my claims, or the evidence I provided..
So at that point- We have Much more evidence to suggest that His post Is true, than you have to suggest that his Post is debunked.
But I do get your attempt to justify it...And I don't say that sarcastically. I wouldn't be defending the post were not for the additional information that I included...Which was not included in his post. But you can't debunk, Unless you can say how its debunked. Its truly that simple.
▼ NoBS
Too chicken shit to delete the post? Say Hi to your Open Society Master, you pedo protecting perv.
▼ dragonkiller
How about go fuck yourself and get a life? That work for you shill? Good. Works for me. Glad you agree.
▼ FuckUredditFuckuSpez
Wait? Which part of my post was incorrect?