youtube.com/watch?v=VHIMuUdeESA
Edit: See Bill. See Bill do blow. See Hillary. See Hillary Lie. See Bill and Hillary pay off the police and judges to hide crimes. See the media. See the media say nothing.
:roflmao:
If I were at all interested in what one can find on youtube when searching âClinton conspiracyâ, I would do that.
[quote]If I were at all interested in what one can find on youtube when searching âClinton conspiracyâ, I would do that.
[/quote]
So you admit not actually knowing anything about the corrupt business practices and cover up by the Clintons . Thatâs what I thought.
[quote]http://policy.forumosa.com/link-only-posts/
[quote]Except in threads expressly designed for this purpose, please do not post a link or embed a video without adding any original content. Forumosa is a forum for discussion. When starting a topic thread, be sure that you have something to say. In most cases, just linking to another discussion or news article is insufficient content, and will result in your thread being removed.
[/quote][/quote]
See edit. See new words.
[quote=âagentsmithâ][quote]If I were at all interested in what one can find on youtube when searching âClinton conspiracyâ, I would do that.
[/quote]
So you admit not actually knowing anything about the corrupt business practices and cover up by the Clintons . Thatâs what I thought. [/quote]
Right, because the best way to know something is to watch conspiracy videos by people who just make stuff up. :loco:
Wow, why didnât the media cover all of this ânewsâ presented in the video. Oh, they did:
[quote]The New York Times reported that it was a poorly documented âhodgepodge of sometimes-crazed charges.â It helped perpetuate a conspiracy theory known as the âClinton Body Countâ about a list of associates Clinton was purported to have had killed. The deaths listed in the film have largely been discredited due to deliberate bias, weak circumstantial evidence, and coincidence.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Chronicles
[/quote]
And any documentary funded by Jerry Falwell must have a high level of integrity. Oh, wait:
web.archive.org/web/200802141504 ⌠1news.html
If believing what any idiot can post on YouTube counts as knowledge, well⌠:loco:
[quote]Right, because the best way to know something is to watch conspiracy videos by people who just make stuff up. :loco:
Wow, why didnât the media cover all of this ânewsâ presented in the video. Oh, they did:[/quote]
Wall Street Journal
[quote] Anyone who thinks that Mena is not serious should speak to William Duncan, a former Internal Revenue Service investigator who, together with Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch, has fought a bitter 10-year battle to bring the matter to light. They pinned their hopes on nine separate state and federal probes. All failed.
âThe Mena investigations were never supposed to see the light of day,â says Mr. Duncan, now an investigator with the Medicaid Fraud Division of the office of Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant âInvestigations were interfered with and covered up, and the justice system was subverted.â [/quote]
Now whatâs your excuse? Blame it on the Republicans?
I donât need an excuse to dismiss claims without evidence. A botched investigation does not make Clinton a drug smuggler or murderer. That article proves my point, thank you for posting it. One can only think it proves a conspiracy by adding layers of connections not present in the article.
I donât need an excuse to dismiss claims without evidence. A botched investigation does not make Clinton a drug smuggler or murderer. That article proves my point, thank you for posting it. One can only think it proves a conspiracy by adding layers of connections not present in the article.[/quote]
Again you just beak off and talk out of you arse without a clue as to any related details from eye witnesses,police investigations, associates of the Clintons. You remind off those people who read the headlines of the daily rag and claim to have a solid understanding of the article. :loco:
Me ass no talk
Like all of those people paid for interviews in the Falwell âdocumentaryâ? You have not provided one single piece of actual evidence proving Clinton committed murder or brought drugs into the US (not people just saying so).
Because I read the entire article you posted and came to the same conclusion the investigator interviewed did? You would think if the journalist who wrote it thought all of these amazingly credible witnesses were actually credible, she would have included them. 
This is all very fascinating, but I think Iâve fed the troll long enough. Why donât you start your own thread about the Clinton murder and drug trafficking ring?
[quote]Because I read the entire article you posted and came to the same conclusion the investigator interviewed did? You would think if the journalist who wrote it thought all of these amazingly credible witnesses were actually credible, she would have included them.
[/quote]
Wow! You apparently read one whole article and then looked for the best possible way to debunk it totally ignoring factual info. Ever think about working for Fox News and joining their team of savvy investigative reporters? You would fit right in.
Troll: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. âyouâre nothing but a fanboyâ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
You posted one whole article to âproveâ the mainstream media is on your side. I point out that article does not say anything you have been claiming. Then you write the above, as if the burden is on me to prove your claim. You claimed it, you havenât proven it. Simple. Iâm not investigating anything-as I said, there is no reason for me to waste my time on ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims.
Thank you for noticing. When people provide nothing but BS, itâs actually quite easy 
[quote=âagentsmithâ][quote]Because I read the entire article you posted and came to the same conclusion the investigator interviewed did? You would think if the journalist who wrote it thought all of these amazingly credible witnesses were actually credible, she would have included them.
[/quote]
Wow! You apparently read one whole article and then looked for the best possible way to debunk it totally ignoring
factual info
. Ever think about working for Fox News and joining their team of savvy investigative reporters? You would fit right in.[/quote]
Letâs agree to disagree on what constitutes âfactual info.â 
So you feel only mainstream are the only credible sources , the bastions of integrated journalism, and alternative news sources are tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutjobs?
Well golly gee wiz ,mister. I guess every time I read and article or watch alternative news channels I should demand them to prove it cause iâm too frinkin lazy to verify it for myself and donât have the ability to connect the dots.
Yes! That is their job. People who make claims should supply relevant evidence.
No! Because the burden is on them.
âConnecting dotsâ is the error and something proponents of every conspiracy share:
[quote]Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of âconnecting the dotsâ between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence sup-
ports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connectionsâor to randomnessâthe conspiracy theory is likely false.[/quote]
It is, is it? Well then your team ainât doing a very good job.
And that is the reason why more and more people are turning to alternative media for their news. There are two sides to a story and mainstream is only telling one side. Capire? Yes there is awful and bias reporting on both sides but that just requires a little common sense to figure out a little more digging from independent souses with no agendas or allegiances.
The burden is on them to tell the truth? Is there a law that requires news sources to tell the truth? When Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were fired from Fox News because they refused to lie , who did the court side with? The ones exposing the truth? Not in todayâs world.
projectcensored.org/11-the-m ⌠gally-lie/
trueactivist.com/two-reporte ⌠-monsanto/
âConnecting dotsâ is the error and something proponents of every conspiracy share:
[quote]Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of âconnecting the dotsâ between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence sup-
ports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connectionsâor to randomnessâthe conspiracy theory is likely false.[/quote][/quote]
Connecting the dots just requires a lot of info. Like the saying goes, if you want to learn about something,you donât just read one book,you read many and make your own decision. But I guess you figure your souses have painstakingly done their due diligence in providing their viewers with unquestionable facts.
[quote=âagentsmithâ]Well then your team ainât doing a very good job.[/quote] Who is it you imagine my team consists of? Conspiracy theorists love to play this game 
[quote=âagentsmithâ]There are two sides to a story and mainstream is only telling one side. [/quote] There may be multiple sides to a story. Specifically with the Clinton murder conspiracy, you are seeing just one possible side, and play for that team without any real evidence.
[quote=âagentsmithâ]a little more digging from independent souses with no agendas or allegiances. [/quote] You mean like evangelicals who see the coming apocalypse in everything?
[quote=âagentsmithâ]The burden is on them to tell the truth? [/quote] Not what I said. If anyone makes a specific claim, like Bill Clinton is a murderer, they should have very specific evidence. The burden is on the person making the claim, not on the person pointing out there is no evidence.
[quote=âagentsmithâ]Is there a law that requires news sources to tell the truth? [/quote] âYour teamâ should hope not
[quote=âagentsmithâ]When Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were fired from Fox News because they refused to lie , who did the court side with? The ones exposing the truth? Not in todayâs world.[/quote] Iâm not shocked at all by this. Fox is a 24 hr bullshit machine.
[quote=âagentsmithâ]Connecting the dots just requires a lot of info.[/quote] No thought or logic required and bonus points for ignoring and denying all other possibilities.
[quote=âCooperationsâ][quote=âagentsmithâ]Well then your team ainât doing a very good job.[/quote] Who is it you imagine my team consists of? Conspiracy theorists love to play this game 
[quote=âagentsmithâ]There are two sides to a story and mainstream is only telling one side. [/quote] There may be multiple sides to a story. Specifically with the Clinton murder conspiracy, you are seeing just one possible side, and play for that team without any real evidence.
[quote=âagentsmithâ]a little more digging from independent souses with no agendas or allegiances. [/quote] You mean like evangelicals who see the coming apocalypse in everything?
[quote=âagentsmithâ]The burden is on them to tell the truth? [/quote] Not what I said. If anyone makes a specific claim, like Bill Clinton is a murderer, they should have very specific evidence. The burden is on the person making the claim, not on the person pointing out there is no evidence.
[quote=âagentsmithâ]Is there a law that requires news sources to tell the truth? [/quote] âYour teamâ should hope not
[quote=âagentsmithâ]When Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were fired from Fox News because they refused to lie , who did the court side with? The ones exposing the truth? Not in todayâs world.[/quote] Iâm not shocked at all by this. Fox is a 24 hr bullshit machine.
Glad you agree with me. So to sum up, The Clintons are obviously criminals who have subverted the justice system to get away with their crimes, the mainstream media is merely state sponsored propaganda, the politicians are controlled by corporate and foreign interests. and there are still some people out there that havenât figured this shit out yet. Glad we had this little talk.
Apparently her aide Huma whatever-din also used a personal email address and like Hillary, the hardware has been shredded / wiped clean. It sounds a lot like the IRS scandal, where they recently found that Lois Lerner was conducting government business on a personal email account under an alias.
Obviously there is no limit to the denials we are going to see from die-hards on this IMHO then there is no reason to engage with them over such things. We are different kinds of people.
This I agree with 100%
Itâs not like Iâve got anything to hide . . .
[quote]A former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clintonâs private e-mail server tried this week to fend off a subpoena to testify before Congress, saying he would assert his constitutional right not to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself.
The move by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked on Clintonâs 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, came in a Monday letter from his lawyer to the House panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.[/quote]
Well, the issue has been around for quite some time now with new and âstartlingâ revelations every couple of weeks.
Despite this, neither Biden nor Warren appear to be entering the race and Bernie Sanders, well, seriously?
So, after clearing hurdle one, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.
Anyone see it differently?