Gilbert for Prez?

[Baselinepunk]

What you are doing is a fallacy.

A set of facts and a citation of laws broken was presented to reach the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.

You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented.

Just because Judge Pirro added rhetoric to a set of facts doesn't make the facts themselves false. You have to show the facts are false, not challenge the rhetoric, to contradict the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.

Funny how in your third last sentence you say, "I trust facts, and distrust unfounded emotional opinions."; yet, you don't offer any facts to the contrary, just an unfounded emotional opinion like "... my instinct tells me to be more skeptical here."

So, based on your own reasoning, why should anyone trust what you said? It's kinda like Kwame saying he's innocent and his political rivals are just out to get him so it has no merit, when the facts proved he was corrupt.

"You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented."

You discredit the source is the source is crappy.

In this case, Pirro is about as reliable of a source as wikipedia -- crap.

She's a shill for Fox Entertainment who will say anything that will keep the checks coming.

Her opinion holds about as much weight as a set of Styrofoam balls; therefore, she is merely a secondary source, as best, and considering her past spew -- her words are far from facts.

Now, bring up this argument and cite some primary sources; then I'm sure we can all talk about it. But using her as a source of "fact" is just not right.