Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great topic. It opens endless opportunities for conspiracy theories, books, movies, newspaper articles, TV programs, talk shows, internet blogs and discussion groups. Nobody should pass such a great opportunity. Oliver Stone is ready and the cameras will be rolling soon. A couple theories more and the American economy may show signs of recovery.
""cobbled together in a sloppy fashion " (See above)
(Watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one too many times)
The naivete, "ignorance is bliss" attitude is mostly how crimes can be committed and not discovered or prosecuted.
And paranoia is how witch hunts start.
I notice you didn't address my point that all these so-called "connected" murders all seem to be of unknown people with only a marginal connection to the Presidents in question - and who posed only a marginal "threat" - and meanwhile the large threats to these folks - the ones who eviscerated the Presidents in question were untouched. WHY IS THAT? Why didn't Bush and Clinton take out the folks who really damaged their reputations? Why pick on the these "small fry" and leave the "big fish" alone?
Why is that?
And why won't you address that question?
Maybe because you don't have a logical, rational answer.
The fact is, if either of these Presidents had been the ruthless criminals you contend they are there would have been no hesitation to take these people out - they were after all a real threat. When the mob here in America is threatened by folks trying to expose them, they have no hesitation killing them (that's why there is the Witness Protection Program). When the Mexican Drug Cartels feel threatened by police officers or government officials, they simply kill them. In fact, when criminal elements anywhere feel threatened they generally have no compunction with killing witnesses or officials investigating them - and the picture these conspiracy-pushing folks paint is of Presidents every bit as powerful and ruthless - and yet the biggest threat to both of these Presidents are somehow left alone to launch their attacks?????
There is no mysterious death of these folks. Not even an accidental death of one of their family members (possibly meant to intimidate them). In fact, the worse thing that happens is that Plame is accused to "trying to put President Bush in an embarrassing situation and her cover as a CIA operative is exposed (putting an end to that part of her career admittedly - but hardly a move to seriously shut her up). WHOOP WHOOP!
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Bush or his VP "Darth Vader" - but these claims are just plain stupid. They fly in the face of common sense - but then again, since when has paranoia EVER made sense.
Clearly, those that believe such tripe are likely to believe it no matter what - but that doesn't mean there is any substance to the theory. They believe because they WANT to believe.
As for myself - I'll consider it when authorities (ANY authorities) actually file some charges. There is after all, supposed to be a presumption of innocence in this country - rather than condemnation by rumor.
I notice you didn't address my point that all these so-called "connected" murders all seem to be of unknown people with only a marginal connection to the Presidents in question - and who posed only a marginal "threat" - and meanwhile the large threats to these folks - the ones who eviscerated the Presidents in question were untouched. WHY IS THAT? Why didn't Bush and Clinton take out the folks who really damaged their reputations? Why pick on the these "small fry" and leave the "big fish" alone?
Why is that?
And why won't you address that question?
Maybe because you don't have a logical, rational answer.
The fact is, if either of these Presidents had been the ruthless criminals you contend they are there would have been no hesitation to take these people out - they were after all a real threat. When the mob here in America is threatened by folks trying to expose them, they have no hesitation killing them (that's why there is the Witness Protection Program). When the Mexican Drug Cartels feel threatened by police officers or government officials, they simply kill them. In fact, when criminal elements anywhere feel threatened they generally have no compunction with killing witnesses or officials investigating them - and the picture these conspiracy-pushing folks paint is of Presidents every bit as powerful and ruthless - and yet the biggest threat to both of these Presidents are somehow left alone to launch their attacks?????
There is no mysterious death of these folks. Not even an accidental death of one of their family members (possibly meant to intimidate them). In fact, the worse thing that happens is that Plame is accused to "trying to put President Bush in an embarrassing situation and her cover as a CIA operative is exposed (putting an end to that part of her career admittedly - but hardly a move to seriously shut her up). WHOOP WHOOP!
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Bush or his VP "Darth Vader" - but these claims are just plain stupid. They fly in the face of common sense - but then again, since when has paranoia EVER made sense.
Clearly, those that believe such tripe are likely to believe it no matter what - but that doesn't mean there is any substance to the theory. They believe because they WANT to believe.
As for myself - I'll consider it when authorities (ANY authorities) actually file some charges. There is after all, supposed to be a presumption of innocence in this country - rather than condemnation by rumor.
Ken
""I notice you didn't address my point that all these so-called "connected" murders all seem to be of unknown people with only a marginal connection to the Presidents in question - and who posed only a marginal "threat" - and meanwhile the large threats to these folks - the ones who eviscerated the Presidents in question were untouched. WHY IS THAT? Why didn't Bush and Clinton take out the folks who really damaged their reputations? Why pick on the these "small fry" and leave the "big fish" alone?""
Because your questions make no sense and don't address much of what Isaid...your inability to comprehend the written owrd is not my problem..
I NEVER NEVER said the murders were connected and YOU saying so doesn't make it true.
In YOUR OPINION these were "marginal" threats...who the he1l are YOU? The FBI ? The Secret Service, undercover???? YOU decide???? get over yourself... Someone like Mike Connell was not small fry...YOU refuse or can't comprehend what facts there are to the story.....that doesn't make me, or the facts, wrong!
""""ones who eviscerated the Presidents in question were untouched.""'
See, you think there was a president that was eviscerated!!!!...weird!!!!
Keep your head down, keep being quiet and obedient....all will be well, all will be well....
This kind of stuff cracks me up because the same people that will claim Bush got away with murder (literally....lol), are the same ones who also claim him to be the dumbest president we've ever had. Which one is it, did he fool the world or was he too stupid to be able to do that.....or just it just depend on what you want to blame him for?
What is really astonishing is that some people still believe that Bush was calling the shots. Cheney and Rumsfeld were waiting for years to accomplish their agenda. Bush was salivating to be a war time President, "The Decider Guy" and the two seized on it and with the help of Rove...the rest is pathetic history.
Executive assassination ring reported directly to Cheney
""""ones who eviscerated the Presidents in question were untouched.""'
See, you think there was a president that was eviscerated!!!!...weird!!!!
You don't think Monica L eviscerated Clinton?
You don't think V Plame eviscerated Bush?
I think both those women did that to both those Presidents.
I'm speaking figuratively of course.
I assumed you were smart enough to understand that.
Maybe I was wrong.
You don't think Monica L eviscerated Clinton?
You don't think V Plame eviscerated Bush?
I think both those women did that to both those Presidents.
I'm speaking figuratively of course.
I assumed you were smart enough to understand that.
Maybe I was wrong.
Ken
No, I don't think either President was eviscerated...especially not bush...he wasn't hung for the act of treason he committed by allowing someone in the White House to "out" an agent....he, and the other perpetrators, didn't even get a slap on the hand ....
I notice you didn't address my point that I never said that the murders were connected and you lied and said I did....
If you don't believe that really bad people do really bad things then why are you arguing....can't you be happy living in the ...the...the smoke and haze....and let others discuss things??? Why are you so determined to prove that there aren't any criminals in politics????? You REALLY think it's a Brownie Troop??? A convent? Kindergarten???:roll eyes:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
