|
No, it IS unlikely that so many people would die like that, but unlikely does not mean impossible. The probability of an unlikely string of deaths happening by chance around one major political figure is actually surprisingly high, even if it's very low for any single individual.
As for Bush Sr., he got stuck in a fickle position: Perot did leach part of his base (a social conservative, but not fiscally conservative, segment), but actually Clinton himself leached part of Bush's base with his more moderate -- and in some cases even somewhat conservative -- policy. Clinton and Perot just sucked up too many swing voters. It was inevitable; Bush Sr's campaign was doomed to failure from the start.
Clinton was smart though -- he stole Perot's footing as well. Perot's major driving point was on NAFTA, a trade agreement which he wildly opposed. Another group that opposed NAFTA was the labor unions, so Clinton promised the unions that he wouldn't sign it and then after he got elected he went ahead and SIGNED it despite that promise. America entered a period of economic prosperity that could not have been attained without making that decision.
|
<i>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?</i>
I didn't write the article - an investigative journalist from NZ wrote it and he was using NZ as an example to relate to the target audience. If he was in any other country he would have used the PM of that country. If you're willing to let it all boil down to chance then I suppose you just aren't skeptical enough of politics and big government and the role private money plays in electing people to power.
For those labeling this as a 'conspiracy theory', at least address with substance why it's a 'conspiracy theory'. What's the conspiracy? How is factual evidence of suspicious deaths (and many of them were actually suspicious deaths, for example single car accidents rather than say two driver car accidents) a theory? The Snopes article doesn't do any research on its own, e.g. on deaths of others linked to the Clintons that weren't suspicious and merely tries to debunk Thompson's book formed on baseless attacks.
|
If you're willing to let it all boil down to chance then I suppose you just aren't skeptical enough of politics and big government and the role private money plays in electing people to power.
Don't give me this bullshit. I did what you asked -- I argued against the substance of the argument by attacking its basic assumptions. All you can say in response is that I'm not skeptical enough? The problem with your argument is the same as the argument that the Bermuda Triangle is somehow cursed. There've been studies done on similarly well-trafficked areas of sea that have shown an equal number of unexplained disappearances. The point is, given any sample of people, a certain number of unnatural deaths are likely to happen. I've fed you statistics of how many people work close to Clinton and what the odds of dying in an accident are, yet all you can do is throw this empty and unwarranted claim back at me? Do you understand? You don't have any argument except that I need to be more "skeptical". Unless you can come up with reasons to refute my statistical analysis, then you must concede that I'm right, and that there is no conspiracy inside the Clinton administration. If you continue to argue that I'm wrong without sound reason, then you're just a fucking idiot.
As for the whole "if this happened in NZ" argument: There is no reason to believe your intuitive judgment over my sound statistical argument. Just because you "feel" that it would be different if it had happened in whatever country doesn't mean you're right, it just means you have a skewed understanding of news values and that you severely underestimate the intelligence of the news media.
|
Just to be more clear, what I'm saying is that given a sample of say, 2000 people, and the fact that your chances of dying in some kind of accident is 2.6%, it's not unusual at all that some 50 people died of unnatural causes. The number 2000 is drawn from my memory of how many people the executive office employs, and is a conservative estimate considering that there are numerous executive and military agencies which aren't included in that count. Plus, the president makes contact and develops relations with hundreds of legislators, lobbyists, diplomats, etc. during 8 years of office. I googled the 2.6% number, I think I had the source in a different post.
Either way, guess what, if you do the math, 2.6% of 2000 turns out to be 52. This number is still a little high considering the 2.6% statistic applies to an entire lifetime, not just 8 years, but is made up for by my conservative estimate of the sample size.
edit:
also consider the extraordinarily tortured lengths the "investigative reporter" went to tie some of the deaths to Clinton. They don't even bother to claim that some of the people ever had personal contact with Clinton -- they only had to have worked for him or was a friend of someone who worked for him, at any point in time. If that is the criteria, then I'd argue that the sample size can probably be expanded to more than ten thousand. What really strikes me, as somebody who's majoring in the field, is the complete lack of journalistic standards. Not ONCE in the article is anything attributed to any kind of credible source. Try searching for the phrase "according to" or the word "said". I'd love to meet the 'investigative journalist' who doesn't cite sources, even anonymous ones. You could have some 9/11 nutjob intern rattle this shit off and the people who write this crap would wet their pants writing about it.
|
What about the fact that many of these were people on their way to see journalists or were involved in Clinton scandals?
|
You mean the dentist who AMBROSE PRITCHARD, a guy who thinks the Clinton administration engineered the Oklahoma bombings, claimed he was meeting? Terrific reporting. And good job turning a singular into a plural.
|
Are you going to try to refute anything I say or are you going to keep asking insinuating questions? I'll tell you right now I won't be able to give you satisfactory answers to every hole you make. But just because an argument or idea has a single hole doesn't mean it's invalid. It certainly doesn't mean you should believe the even more incredulous story that the Clinton administration was killing innocent Americans. I could ask insinuating questions about that, and pretend it was an argument, but I don't because logically, I won't have accomplished anything. Instead, I gave you sound arguments as to why you shouldn't listen to this conspiracy nutcrackery. Until you respond to those arguments, your case doesn't hold any ground.
Mortality: thanks for the very informative post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
