Did you read that link? Let me quote the first comment: "“Probably false” because somebody who worked for the Clintons said so? Snopes just threw away it’s own credibility."

Snopes' source? Clinton's campaign folks.

God please excuse Victor's language, I did provoke him. 🙏

Gene363 wrote:

Victor trying to cover up a cover up again..?? 😕


and this photo was taken way before Photo-shop was invented... 🤐

DrafterX wrote:

Yep. That was the first part of the link.
Of course, the proof provided is the lack of a union stamp, something mentioned by the clinton worker and shown in photos of actual clinton buttons further down in that article. If you bothered to read to the end.

I can create a button for Ted Cruz with a swastika on it... the person you'd go to first to find out if it really is part of his campaign would be his campaign operations manager. Know what he'd say? He'd say they didn't make it. This is a case of a poorly made counterfeit campaign button. You're choosing to believe it's real despite evidence and testimony to the contrary because you want it to be real.

victor809 wrote:

Proof enough! 🤐

Thank you Drafterx 👍

Gene363 wrote:

Evidence? If you had that Cruz button made in Arkansas, a Right to Work state, it would be unlikely to have a union stamp. It would cost you more to be made in a union shop and if you anticipated that detail, why not add a fake union bug to a fake button?

Gene363 wrote:

Yep... and all those fake cohibas in glass top cases... if they're faking the cohiba why aren't they putting it in a proper case?
.... give it up gene. You're going through some seriously convoluted logic to find some link between clinton and the confederate flag. A link might pop up. But when it does, if it's real, it won't be this easily refuted. If it were a campaign button there would be documents for the order, the delivery, there would be mock-ups, the company would have records. blah blah blah. Instead you've got some random dude on ebay selling what he claims is a button, but which no one involved in the campaign says existed.

Hate clinton all you want, but believing this nonsense is just dumb.

victor809 wrote:

Thanks, though I don't hate her, I hate her beliefs, her lies and actions/lack of action, feel free to defend her all you want. That said, before the controversy over the flag on the SC State House a few years ago I doubt she would have given it a second thought. As for the picture, I merely responded to your evidence with my evidence, how could anyone want to quit doing that? If my facts are not enough, evidence offered by Drafterx is compelling.

Gene363 wrote:

Huh?

You responded to my evidence that your photo was fake, with a different fake item. When I provided you proof that item was fake, you said it couldn't be because if someone were to fake it, they would add all the stuff we were checking for to see if it was fake, so it must not be fake. Which makes about as much sense as buying "Kohiba" brand cigars (if they were fake, they would have made the label look like real cohibas!)

As for drafter's "compelling evidence".... Huh?

victor809 wrote:

"Huh?" indeed, quoting a person/organization, whose opinion is that the photo and badge are fake, is not evidence or proof of anything other than that person's opinion. If that were true, all those UFO stories would considered gospel.

Gene363 wrote:

... this photo was taken way before Photo-shop was invented... 🤐

DrafterX wrote:

Dear lord... you're really down the rabbit hole on this one aren't you.
Here are two other photos taken that day.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/class-leader-hillary-rodham-of-wellesley-college-talking-news-photo/50594227?esource=AFF_GI_PHG&source=&aid=skimlinks_phg&cid=110l14&lid=0&asid= 

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/class-leader-and-future-first-lady-senator-hillary-rodham-news-photo/480020931?esource=AFF_GI_PHG&source=&aid=skimlinks_phg&cid=110l14&lid=0&asid= 

How is this not sinking in for you?

victor809 wrote:

Pretty obvious they could have copied a square from the opposite wall and pasted it in the book shelf to cover the flag.

Gene363 wrote:

The photo does not look fake to me, but if someone was "really good" at photoshop, then they might have been able to fake it . . .

But as was asked before, what does it really matter ?

Especially on a 43 y/o photo ... This whole flag business is a bunch of bull ****.

jetblasted wrote:

Seriously... anyone with a half a brain can dig up these images on the internet.
http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/27/2761/IXETD00Z/posters/lee-balterman-future-first-lady-and-senator-hillary-rodham-while-at-wellesley-college.jpg 

This is from a photoset by some Lee Balterman guy, there's a bunch of different angles of her in the chair. None of them feature a confederate flag. If they didn't want one in the set, they would have taken it out when it was taken, it isn't like they would have planned on photoshopping them out in 1969.

victor809 wrote:

Seriously... anyone with a half a brain can dig up these images on the internet.
http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/27/2761/IXETD00Z/posters/lee-balterman-future-first-lady-and-senator-hillary-rodham-while-at-wellesley-college.jpg 

This is from a photoset by some Lee Balterman guy, there's a bunch of different angles of her in the chair. None of them feature a confederate flag. If they didn't want one in the set, they would have taken it out when it was taken, it isn't like they would have planned on photoshopping them out in 1969.

victor809 wrote:

Photoshop works on old photos, too !!

jetblasted wrote:

Shhhhh, Victor is serious about this, it's import to him to preserve Hillary. 😇

Gene363 wrote: