|
On May 15 2008 22:52 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2008 21:20 a-game wrote:well i skimmed that link and it seems snopes is doing a lot more theorycrafting than the article in the OP. the OP article basically was just saying "this is how X person died and this is how X person had ties to the Clintons. interpret that how you will" whereas the snopes thing was like "BUT IF THIS RLY HAPPENED THEN CNN WOULD REPORT IT DUH!" god it's hot here  If you read both sources and really think the link in the OP is more "impartial", I question your judgement. The snopes link points out numerous half-truths and lies in the OP text, supported by hard evidence (grand jury findings, medical reports, etc.). Not to mention the fact that their idea of "people close to Bill Clinton" is awfully broad (enough to stretch the boundaries of credibility): see for example, Henry and Ives.
what? first off, i said i *skimmed* the snopes article
secondly i never said anything about impartiality. i just got the impression that the first article sufficiently made a case (despite it's flaws) that people with ties to the clinton's drop like flies.
snopes article on the other hand was doing a lot of theorycrafting, i would of probably read the whole thing if i hadn't been so annoyed with all of the lazy theorycrafting he did in the beginning. i hate it when people ignore the evidence and instead twist the debate into arguments like "if there was something suspicious here then CNN would of told me about it!".
however like i said, i just skimmed it so i never claimed to have read his whole article. you can be angry with me for only having skimmed the article but there's no need to call my judgement into question considering i didn't read all of it.
i don't think anyones explicitly making the case that the clinton's did this or that, it's just interesting to see how many people died in the clinton's wake. a few deaths aren't a big deal, but once it gets into the dozens it becomes pretty striking, even if the causes are unprovable.
|
|
|
THE MADDEN CURSE IS REAL TOO
|
On May 16 2008 10:09 a-game wrote:
however like i said, i just skimmed it so i never claimed to have read his whole article. you can be angry with me for only having skimmed the article but there's no need to call my judgement into question considering i didn't read all of it.
You're willing to give a conspiracy theory serious consideration, but ready to dismiss the debunking with a casual glance, and you think that doesn't call your judgement into question?
|
If there's one thing I don't tolerate it's fucking intellectual stupidity. You want to believe a conspiracy based on an intuitive guess, be my guest; but when you burn in a special circle of hell for deliberate stupidity, you'll have only yourself to thank. So people in power aren't allowed to die? The executive branch is a huge fucking organization with nearly a million employees. Let's say a thousand of them are in places of power, or have had personal contact with Bill Clinton, and that's a conservative estimate. To have gotten there, it probably took these people a lot of time, so I think it's fair to assume most of them are in a very ripe age, say 40-60. Out of a thousand people in that age range, you don't think it's natural for about 30 or 40 of them to drop dead of whatever causes in a period of eight years? Everything that's been said about the Clinton administration, if someone would just do the research, would probably apply to any past presidency, or anybody in power. Bottom line -- just because someone plays a spooky tune and blows a whistle doesn't mean there are fucking ghosts around.
God fucking damn, fuck fuck fuck i hate conspiracy nuts.
|
On May 16 2008 03:00 Raithed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2008 19:35 a-game wrote:
AdamaS asked me to make this thread for him because as a new user he is not able to make new topics yet.
CASY?!?
you beat me to it.
|
On May 18 2008 11:26 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2008 10:09 a-game wrote:
however like i said, i just skimmed it so i never claimed to have read his whole article. you can be angry with me for only having skimmed the article but there's no need to call my judgement into question considering i didn't read all of it.
You're willing to give a conspiracy theory serious consideration, but ready to dismiss the debunking with a casual glance, and you think that doesn't call your judgement into question?
i didn't dismiss the debunking, and i didn't give any conspiracy theory serious consideration.
straw man argument detected
|
People die all the time. 7 degrees of separation. Enough said.
|
Who cares... their already dead.
|
looks like we can add Ted Kennedy to the list soon. did his endorsement of obama cost him his life?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Thanks for the post a-game 
For those debunking this as mere chance... Read the last few paragraphs of the article. Even in a country as large as the USA, the probability of this many people dying of accidents is extremely unlikely.
+ Show Spoiler +Firstly, why can't all of these deaths be coincidental?
To answer that, the reader should transfer the same scenario to the New Zealand political scene.
Imagine if 50 or so people connected to Jenny Shipley in some way, either as advisors, political fundraisers or even Cabinet Ministers, were to be killed in the same fashion in New Zealand over a period of only a few years.
Before you say, "hang on, America is a much bigger country", think again. The size of a nation has no impact on how many people each of us know on a personal basis. There is a limit to how many people we can stay in contact with.
So there's no reason for Bill Clinton's circle of friends to be much larger than Shipley's, although he may of course be a lot more popular.
Statistically, what would you say if plane crashes and midair explosions killed people close to Jenny Shipley on eight separate occasions, including those who were on their way to meet journalists to spill the beans on her activities?
How many people do you know personally who have died in just one plane crash? Do you or any of your friends personally know the victims of eight separate plane crashes?
And then what if ten or so more of her contacts and advisors, including perhaps her chief private secretary, shot themselves in apparent suicides?
And then another 20 dropped dead of either heart attacks, or were killed in one-vehicle car crashes, or no cause of death was established?
If you can't accept that so many people linked to one person could all die mysteriously in New Zealand, then it's statistically no more likely that the deaths were only "unfortunate coincidences" in the US.
The second belief hurdle is one of: "If this were true, why wouldn't the police investigate and arrest those responsible?"
Please note that a number of those killed were law enforcement officers, investigators or lawyers. Despite obvious murders, in some cases, no culprit was ever located. In other cases, local law enforcement was keen to close the case with a "suicide" verdict as soon as possible.
If the person you, as a small county police officer, are investigating is the President of the United States, protected by the Secret Service and the CIA - the latter organisation involved in drug trafficking operations allegedly connected to the Clintons - and you see a growing body count stretching out on the road ahead, what would you do? More significantly, what do you think you'd be able to do?
They write movies about dilemmas like this!
As a point of fact, no charges were ever brought against anyone for drug trafficking in Mena, Arkansas, despite police surveillance operations detailing who was responsible and where the money was being laundered - Bill Clinton's ADFA. Some former police officers have since stated the cases were derailed because corrupt cops were in on the drug-smuggling as well.
The third hurdle is "what about the news media? Surely Bill Clinton can't control the entire media. This is just a paranoid conspiracy theory!"
Well, we're sorry to shatter any illusions. Just as the New Zealand news media have their weak points, Clinton's hold on the US media was almost total.
When Paula Jones first considered suing Clinton for sexual harrassment, she told her story to a Washington Post investigative journalist. When the paper began to back away from running it, the reporter and Post management had a huge row, resulting in the journalist's suspension.
Another woman sleeping with Clinton, Sandy Purdue, filmed interviews with NBC, ABC and the Sally Jessy Raphael TV show in the lead-up to the 1992 Presidential elections. None of the interviews ever made it to air.
Instead, an almost absolute media blackout was imposed, and it was left to foreign media like Britain's Sunday Telegraph to break the big stories about Clinton misconduct.
Some of Clinton's former sexual partners were subsequently appointed to the Whitehouse Press Corp, working for news media outlets like CBS.
When a tabloid broke the story of Jennifer Flowers' affair with Clinton, it was CBS 60 minutes that came to his rescue with a "Stand By Your Man" Bill & Hillary interview.
60 Minutes executive producer Don Hewitt admitted the programme was specifically designed, and edited, to ensure Clinton won the New Hamphshire primary.
It is only when a story becomes too big to ignore, like Monica Lewinsky, that the US media have moved against Clinton.
You'll recall Bill Clinton's much publicised admission in the past that he had "once" tried marijuana, "but I didn't inhale".
What the news media didn't tell you about was Bill Clinton's cocaine habit, outlined by former colleague, L D Brown in his new book, Crossfire.
"The Boca Raton Resort had several bars which were first class and full of patrons. With the conference being over, Bill felt a little more at ease in the hotel, not fearing being seen drunk or womanizing by any of the other governors. We met a couple of people in the bar and Bill stepped out for a few minutes, long enough for me to become concerned. As I went to look for him, I first checked the bathroom.
"I called his name but got no answer. Just as I was about to leave, I saw his number 13s protruding from under one of the stalls. 'Bill, are you okay?' I asked, knowing there couldn't be another foot that big in Boca Raton. 'Yeah, yeah L.D., these damn sinuses are killing me!' As I retreated to the bar, I realized what was going on. Bill knew that with my prior experiences in drug enforcement I didn't tolerate illicit drug use - particularly 'nose candy'."
Presumably Bill didn't "inhale" on this occasion either.
How well did Brown know Clinton?
"L.D. Brown started his career in law enforcement as a guard at the notorious Tucker prison in Arkansas. In the Arkansas State Police he was assigned to the security detail of then-Governor Bill Clinton.
"Brown developed a close friendship with Clinton that would last for years. Clinton helped Brown gain admission to the Central Intelligence Agency, where he witnessed cocaine smuggling that led to his breakup with Clinton. After leaving the CIA. and the Arkansas State Police, Brown obtained a Ph.D. degree and now operates a private consulting firm in Little Rock, Arkansas."
Like the New Zealand media timidity in tackling controversial issues, the US media have given scant coverage to Brown's book, and he had to publish it himself after a number of publishing companies withdrew from the project.
Remember, when you see Bill Clinton touring New Zealand at the APEC conference, you are looking at the face of a man surrounded by more death, and deeper secrets, than possibly any other President in US history.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
United States1814 Posts
lol at conspiracy theories. such a waste!
|
William Jefferson Blythe Jr., Bill Clintons father, died three months before he was born due to a suspicious car accident. No investigation ever took place, but it is widely rumoured that his father knew things about Bill that could seriously harm his political career.
John F. Kennedy died after assassination on november 22 1963. This caused a change in the political atmosphere in America that made it possible for Bill Clinton to be elected 30 years later. His death has never been officially solved.
I could keep going.
|
> Conspiracy theorists will note that the main commanders all had middle names beginning with "J".
You've got to be kidding me.
|
On May 16 2008 10:09 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2008 22:52 Clutch3 wrote:On May 15 2008 21:20 a-game wrote:well i skimmed that link and it seems snopes is doing a lot more theorycrafting than the article in the OP. the OP article basically was just saying "this is how X person died and this is how X person had ties to the Clintons. interpret that how you will" whereas the snopes thing was like "BUT IF THIS RLY HAPPENED THEN CNN WOULD REPORT IT DUH!" god it's hot here If you read both sources and really think the link in the OP is more "impartial", I question your judgement. The snopes link points out numerous half-truths and lies in the OP text, supported by hard evidence (grand jury findings, medical reports, etc.). Not to mention the fact that their idea of "people close to Bill Clinton" is awfully broad (enough to stretch the boundaries of credibility): see for example, Henry and Ives. what? first off, i said i *skimmed* the snopes article secondly i never said anything about impartiality. i just got the impression that the first article sufficiently made a case (despite it's flaws) that people with ties to the clinton's drop like flies. snopes article on the other hand was doing a lot of theorycrafting, i would of probably read the whole thing if i hadn't been so annoyed with all of the lazy theorycrafting he did in the beginning. i hate it when people ignore the evidence and instead twist the debate into arguments like "if there was something suspicious here then CNN would of told me about it!". however like i said, i just skimmed it so i never claimed to have read his whole article. you can be angry with me for only having skimmed the article but there's no need to call my judgement into question considering i didn't read all of it. i don't think anyones explicitly making the case that the clinton's did this or that, it's just interesting to see how many people died in the clinton's wake. a few deaths aren't a big deal, but once it gets into the dozens it becomes pretty striking, even if the causes are unprovable.
You're really going to use your own intentional ignorance of the primary sources to defend yourself??
Well, then... sorry, but I don't think your argument holds up (I didn't actually read your post, you see, just skimmed it... so I might have missed a paragraph or two...but since I didn't bother to read anything questioning my argument...there's no need to question my judgement...etc).
|
i am clearly stipulating that my opinions are casual because i only casually read the articles in question.
i said from the beginning "i skimmed these articles and it appeared to me that this was the gist of the articles, but i'm aware that i did only skim the articles"
i feel like i've more than generously couched my opinions in deferential tones and as such your attempts to do a full critique on my posts are unwarranted. usually you have better reading comprehension than this clutch, what is it with you and getting bitchy when people criticize the clintons...
EDIT: removed "are you retarded"
|
Personally, I don't buy most of it. There are some events that are suspicious, some of which I knew beforehand, but a lot of it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Edit: in terms of who gets killed and who lives, how people die, etc. There are people who "know a lot" who are alive and seem to be in a position where they are more likely to blab if it will benefit them, as compared to a bodyguard who knows only scattered clues and would not as likely get listened to.
But I do want to point out that if this were a conspiracy theory about Bush, I bet the vast majority of you would be jumping on the bandwagon. The fact that you are all that much less suspicious of Clinton makes it far more likely that he could have gotten away with such a scheme if it were true.
|
On May 21 2008 17:36 Lenwe wrote:
William Jefferson Blythe Jr., Bill Clintons father, died three months before he was born due to a suspicious car accident. No investigation ever took place, but it is widely rumoured that his father knew things about Bill that could seriously harm his political career.
John F. Kennedy died after assassination on november 22 1963. This caused a change in the political atmosphere in America that made it possible for Bill Clinton to be elected 30 years later. His death has never been officially solved.
I could keep going.
uh
i would argue the reason clinton was elected was because ross perot stole george bush elder's political base. but then i'd just be buying into mainstream media propoganda right. god you fucking imbecile. is every unnatural death an assassination? you could go on? please fucking do. i could use a laugh.
AdamaS: Why would a similar string of deaths attract attention in New Zealand? They are just as likely to happen by chance. I mean did you even read my post?
the probability of this many people dying of accidents is extremely unlikely.
On what basis do you claim that? The President is "connected" with thousands of people, literally. The executive office alone consists of some two thousand employees, each of which is "remarkable" enough to be on that list if they died of an accident. Based on that number alone, and the fact that your chances of dying in a car accident is about 1/84 (http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=37189&frm=krsn), it isn't unusual at all that 50 or so people have died in his administration. Yes I know they're not all car accidents, but the chances of something like drowning is 1 in 1000.
|
Besides Lenwe, do you realize that after kennedy came four republican presidents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
