• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies

So your belief is that the family members of the thirty-five victims fall into two categories:

1. Those who care more about money and protecting their precious careers than doing everything humanly possible to bring their loved ones murderers to justice. Why do you assume that PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW are doing this?

2. Those who are too stupid to investigate the incident properly. The family members have access to all the same information that you do. What insight do you have that they don't? Or is it you're just smarter than they are?

What's wrong? You also having trouble debating the facts? So much so that you have to completely mischaracterize what I've said about the families on this thread? If YOU really care about the families, like you want people to believe, perhaps you should join me in asking beachnut to tell us whether he's told his good "friend"'s family about the views of the pathologists and photographer, and the fact that the Peters letter was filled with outright lies. Do they even know those things from any source? beachnut won't tell us. Maybe YOU can convince him to be more forthcoming, since both of you now seem to think you are better "friends" of the families than I am. :rolleyes:
 
What's wrong? You also having trouble debating the facts? So much so that you have to completely mischaracterize what I've said about the families on this thread? If YOU really care about the families, like you want people to believe, perhaps you should join me in asking beachnut to tell us whether he's told his good "friend"'s family about the views of the pathologists and photographer, and the fact that the Peters letter was filled with outright lies. Do they even know those things from any source? beachnut won't tell us. Maybe YOU can convince him to be more forthcoming, since both of you now seem to think you are better "friends" of the families than I am. :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that Beachnut's opinions are preventing the family members of the 35 victims from demanding a new investigation? Any evidence? If not, why do think that these families are so different than the Lockerbie families that refused for 15 years to give up on justice for their loved ones?

My father died four years ago. If I had even the slightest belief that he was murdered I'd stop at nothing, nothing to bring his killers to justice even if it cost me everything, ever cent I ever had and/or my career. Why do you assume these family members wouldn't do the same thing?

These people have a much more vested interest in what happened that day than you do, yet you assume that you understand more, you have investigated more than they have.
 
I missed the part about not using a blunt object... he's saying that a blunt impact wouldn't have been a believable part of the crash, so they shot him instead?

I have to ask, wouldn't it have been easier to make it look like something besides a gunshot? Not like there weren't bits of plane everywhere to take a swing with. Then you wouldn't have to be on record giving orders not to have an autopsy that should have happened.
 
Are you suggesting that Beachnut's opinions are preventing the family members of the 35 victims from demanding a new investigation? Any evidence?

Well it's pretty clear from what beachnut posted here that he's told the pilot's family that the allegations are just a pack of lies and should be ignored. That you seem hesitant to join me in asking him if the family knows about the pathologists and the Peters letter lies suggests you know I'm right in my assessment that they don't. And neither of us know if this "friend" of the pilot may have been in contact with other families. It seems likely that any good friend of the pilot, who was also in the military, would have had contact with the families of the other crew members. Wonder what he told them about the investigation and what they know?

As to the other families, how would they know about these details? They were never mentioned in any government report or letter sent to the families. In anything put out by the military. EVERYTHING they've heard from those sources would have reassured them that all facts were in line with the official story. Everything in those sources was published with the intent to convince them that any suggestion of foul play was looked at and refuted by experts. Why would you think they'd look any further than that, given that everyone knows people die in airplane crashes?

The allegations were never mentioned in any mainstream media outlet. Not ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times ... NONE of them. Most people get their news from those sources. If the families watched the National Geographics or Discovery Channel documentaries, they'd have no reason to doubt. If you can't believe the veracity of NG and DC, what can you believe?

Why would you think the families would even know the details unless they frequented certain small forums (like this) and specifically look for more information? Some families that visit the internet might even shy away from anything having to do with the crash. Painful memories. Who knows, perhaps a family member heard some rumor about this and did go looking ... and the first thing they encountered was beachnut or you calling it a silly CT theory? And since everyone knows JREF is a place where CT is only debunked, and you are fine upstanding members, they might just accept your or beachnut's word on the matter and leave it at that.

And even if a family member or two did manage to get past your authoritative reassurances that it was just CT, and find the statements of the pathologists, some of them might still doubt them because of the source reporting their statements. With folks like beachnut claiming the quotes are made up by CTer's who also believe in 9/11, a family member might decide to look no further. They might not do what I did which is dig until I located actual video and audio tapes of the photographer and pathologist making their charges.

And even then, if they found out everything I know and decided that yes indeed their loved one was murdered, what then? Go public? To who? To the media that's been covering this up ... that they now know has been a tool of the government? To the FBI ... that they also now know is not exactly honest in the matter? To the military ... who lied to them in the AIB report and afterwords? To anyone in the Clinton administration? Why even the Bush administration is suspect when you see the Bush's and Clintons acting so chummy, and know Bush has done nothing about this yet must know the allegations. Some of them might just decide it's hopeless and that would be the end of it.

But suppose one or two did go forward? How do you know they weren't threatened and intimidated back into silence at that point? After all, we are talking here about a possible conspiracy in which one of the highest officials in the US government was murdered. Along with over 30 innocent people. You think people like that would hesitate for one minute to end the life of anyone who actually did threaten to force an investigation and reveal the truth? You think a family member might not realize that? Boy, are you a babe in the woods.

Or perhaps at that point the bad guys would just pay the person off to keep their silence. How many more millions would it really take for some people. And not all the people who were on this plane were good guys. A lot were hard core Democrats ... part of the in-crowd in the campaign finance scandals. An investigation might open up a big bag of worms that might damage their reputations (i.e., better off dead in the minds of the family) or even put families at legal risk over what they might have known at the time (look at what happened to Brown's wife and son).

In any case, you stlll haven't got past the evidence. You are still trying to avoid dealing with what the experts in the case, where Brown's injuries are concern, concluded; namely, he should have been autopsied because the wound in his head was consistent with a bullet wound. And motive was certainly there. :D

If not, why do think that these families are so different than the Lockerbie families that refused for 15 years to give up on justice for their loved ones?

Well for one, the families of the Lockerbie victims weren't accusing highly placed officials in the US government and military of being involved in and covering up a mass murder. All they had to worry about was Libya. And what could Libya do? So you're making a false comparison. Desperation?

:D
 
I have to ask, wouldn't it have been easier to make it look like something besides a gunshot? Not like there weren't bits of plane everywhere to take a swing with. Then you wouldn't have to be on record giving orders not to have an autopsy that should have happened.

gnome, when you can't even take the time to read THIS thread and know what was said by me about that, why do you think anyone should pay attention to you at all? You might as well go back to sleep for all the logic and content you're adding. :D
 
Ah Vince Foster find out about Waco Texas and the branch of davidians? David Koresh was a victim of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and not a crazy cult leader from Texas? Ah and Ron Brown probaly find out that OKC bombing was and insidejob? Yes and Bill Clinton started the somalia war and Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo even if the serbs didn"t do anything wrong. I guess Hillary Clinton was right when she said that there was a vast right wing conspiracy. Lets not forget the troopergate and Bill Clinton didn"t inhale and Bubba was not a draft dodger.
 
Ah Vince Foster find out about Waco Texas and the branch of davidians? David Koresh was a victim of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and not a crazy cult leader from Texas? Ah and Ron Brown probaly find out that OKC bombing was and insidejob? Yes and Bill Clinton started the somalia war and Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo even if the serbs didn"t do anything wrong. I guess Hillary Clinton was right when she said that there was a vast right wing conspiracy. Lets not forget the troopergate and Bill Clinton didn"t inhale and Bubba was not a draft dodger.

What's the problem, moon? Having a bit of trouble coming up with any actual sources or facts to dispute the ones I've supplied in this thread? Are you so desperate that all you can think to do now is throw out a stack of red herrings on allegations I've never mentioned? You must really be worried about the Brown or Foster allegations getting some traction and investigated. Look at how hard you've tried to make it go away in this thread alone. Would the investigations perhaps hit a little close to home? Or do you realize that finding a bullet in Brown's head or a wound in Foster's head that wasn't said to be there would literally destroy the Democrat party? Yeah, that might make any toe-tag Democrat nervous. :D
 
gnome, when you can't even take the time to read THIS thread and know what was said by me about that, why do you think anyone should pay attention to you at all? You might as well go back to sleep for all the logic and content you're adding. :D

I've read plenty.

Let me ask... do you think everyone here disagreeing with you just has a pathological desire to defend the Clintons despite all the damning facts you've brought to the table?

Until you drop constantly questioning people's motives to the point of absurdity, and are willing to clarify posts you've already made, you'll get nowhere here.
 
Let me ask... do you think everyone here disagreeing with you just has a pathological desire to defend the Clintons despite all the damning facts you've brought to the table?

So you agree the facts are damning?
 
So you agree the facts are damning?

Irony is clearly lost on you.

Let me say it another way. Do you think that you're receiving so much disagreement because of:

1. Blind partisanship
2. Unconvincing analysis on your part
3. Something in between
4. (anything else you care to describe)
 
Last edited:
Do you think that you're receiving so much disagreement because of:

1. Blind partisanship

Definitely. On your side's part. I'm clearly not partisan in this matter since I've criticized the Bush administration and even called them complicit in the coverup.

2. Unconvincing analysis on your part

No. My facts are so convincing that your side of this debate hasn't even tried to offer facts to challenge them. Instead, it's offered strawmen and red herrings galore, distractions, disinformation, adhominems, distortions and even lies.

Is the irony of that lost on you? :D
 
Definitely. On your side's part. I'm clearly not partisan in this matter since I've criticized the Bush administration and even called them complicit in the coverup.



No. My facts are so convincing that your side of this debate hasn't even tried to offer facts to challenge them. Instead, it's offered strawmen and red herrings galore, distractions, disinformation, adhominems, distortions and even lies.

Is the irony of that lost on you? :D

Ok. Let me just get this straight. Despite the posting history of some of your prominent critics in this thread, you believe that their entire appearance of conservatism and occasional Clinton-bashing on their own is... what? A fake? A carefully orchestrated effort to discredit you that began before you even started arguing this?

What am I to make of the fact that you are accusing people I've known to be conservative for longer than I've known you, of being blindly partisan for Clinton? You speak of ad-hominems, how is it that telling people they're not credible because they're liberal Clinton-lovers isn't an ad-hominem?
 
Ok. Let me just get this straight. Despite the posting history of some of your prominent critics in this thread,

By all means, show me the posting history of these critics. I'd love to see some posts where they went after Clinton for anything more than a sexual affair with an intern. Any posts from then concerning Filegate? Or Chinagate? Campaign Finance Illegalities? How about Rapegate? Talk is cheap. Let's see the proof since you claim to have it.
 
By all means, show me the posting history of these critics. I'd love to see some posts where they went after Clinton for anything more than a sexual affair with an intern. Any posts from then concerning Filegate? Or Chinagate? Campaign Finance Illegalities? How about Rapegate? Talk is cheap. Let's see the proof since you claim to have it.

Just because they don't think Clinton did everything YOU think he did, doesn't mean they're fans of Clinton. You do realize that there are reasons besides conspiracy-scandals to disapprove of Clinton? If someone hates Clinton because they're ideologically opposed to his brand of liberalism, would they likely be blind to your suggestions, or does it make more sense to realize that your arguments are unconvincing?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
By all means, show me the posting history of these critics. I'd love to see some posts where they went after Clinton for anything more than a sexual affair with an intern. Any posts from then concerning Filegate? Or Chinagate? Campaign Finance Illegalities? How about Rapegate? Talk is cheap. Let's see the proof since you claim to have it.

Just because they don't think Clinton did everything YOU think he did, doesn't mean they're fans of Clinton. You do realize that there are reasons besides conspiracy-scandals to disapprove of Clinton? If someone hates Clinton because they're ideologically opposed to his brand of liberalism, would they likely be blind to your suggestions, or does it make more sense to realize that your arguments are unconvincing?

So in other words, you can't demonstrate that any of those attacking me and the allegation that Brown and Foster may have been murdered have every said anything of real consequence against the Clintons or Clinton administration. I see.

By the way, I would never HATE a person just because they had a different ideology or brand of liberalism or opinion. But Democrats do seem prone to hate anyone who even disagrees with them. Look at what happened to Lieberman and the vile things that have been said about him on Democrat blogs and websites. Just because he disagrees with them on a matter of policy. :D
 
So in other words, you can't demonstrate that any of those attacking me and the allegation that Brown and Foster may have been murdered have every said anything of real consequence against the Clintons or Clinton administration. I see.

By the way, I would never HATE a person just because they had a different ideology or brand of liberalism or opinion. But Democrats do seem prone to hate anyone who even disagrees with them. Look at what happened to Lieberman and the vile things that have been said about him on Democrat blogs and websites. Just because he disagrees with them on a matter of policy. :D

Way to dodge the point.
So not agreeing with you = not saying anything of consequence. I'll remember that.

You haven't addressed the point... there is ample evidence that some of the posters disagreeing with you have no particular loyalty to Clinton. What explains their disagreement with you?

Arguing over whether the word "hate" is appropriate doesn't answer that question. Suffice it to say that they are not particularly loyal to Clinton or his politics and have shown it. If you wish to understand where they're coming from, assuming that they're actually secret democrat Clinton-lovers isn't really going to work for you.
 
So not agreeing with you = not saying anything of consequence. ... snip ... You haven't addressed the point... there is ample evidence that some of the posters disagreeing with you have no particular loyalty to Clinton.

Actually nothing in that regard has been entered into evidence on this thread. Why don't you just post some links where they went after Clinton? Let the readers be the judge if they went after him for anything of consequence ... namely something criminal in nature.

Suffice it to say that they are not particularly loyal to Clinton or his politics and have shown it.

Prove it. I don't see ANYTHING here that proves that. You and they are certainly free to link us to some posts that show they were anti-Clinton before you claimed they were and that they went after him for something besides getting Monica'd in the Oval Office. If you/they don't do that, I can only presume you/they can't do it. Because I would have no trouble linking you to statements I made years ago were I said VERY negative things about Clinton ... and Bush.
 
Why should I when you keep moving the goalposts?

Do you agree that someone can be Anti-Clinton without believing he commited serious crimes beyond the Monica situation? If you don't, then what I'm suggesting would mean nothing to you anyway.

But what you're basically arguing is that if one doesn't already agree that Clinton is a serious criminal, then they're too partisan to disagree with you with any credibility.

Isn't there an excluded middle there?
 
Here's a sample spectrum of people's opinions of Clinton, as I see it.

A. People who think he's a murderer.
B. People who think he's not a murderer, but committed serious crimes
C. People who think that the Lewinsky situation was pretty serious, but otherwise aren't convinced he's a criminal.
D. People who opposed Clinton for mainly ideological reasons
E. People that dislike most politicians and consider Clinton no exception, but not exceptionally bad either.
F. People who kind of liked Clinton sometimes but don't think he was all that great.
G. People that liked Clinton as president but could be convinced of criminal activity given enough evidence.
H. People that liked Clinton so much that they wouldn't believe anything bad about him no matter what they were told.

You are trying to convince us here that only groups A, B, and H exist. If you tell me that demonstrating that some of your detractors are in C, D, E, F, or G would mean something to you, I could go looking. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
Last edited:
Why should I when you keep moving the goalposts?

In other words, you can't actually prove that any of those who disagree with me on this thread made anti-Clinton posts years ago that did more than complain about his inability to keep his pants up.

Do you agree that someone can be Anti-Clinton without believing he commited serious crimes beyond the Monica situation?

They can if they are Obama Democrats. :D But no one who is rational and familiar with events over the last decade can for one minute believe the Clinton adminstration committed no crimes beyond lying about Monica. The evidence is simply too strong that Clinton and his administration committed crimes in Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate, CampaignFinanceGate, RapeGate, EmailGate, BrownGate, and FosterGate. And I'm more than willing to debate you about any of those topics, should you disagree with me but claim you know something about them. As far as I'm concerned, someone who claims they dislike Clinton but defends him in any of those cases is quite suspect. They may not be telling the truth but only hoping to gain a little credibility in the debate.
 

Back
Top Bottom