My intent is not to single you out, reconmike, you're one of many who has posted "stuff" like this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
....Come on DC, you can't admit that even a few of these names, high rankiing officals, dead with bullets in their heads doesnt seem a wee bit suspicious?
And then add that after Foster offs himself Clinton claims executive privilege
on Foster's files.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=28 |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
The reason Clinton got off unscathed was because everyone close to any of the investigations wound up dead, does Bush have a close allies dead list like this?
Funny that anyone close to any Slick Wllie wrong doing has a bullet in their head or are taking a dirt nap.
Coincidence? I am so glad I dont know the slick one thats for friggen sure.
Edit: opps somehow these Clinton bodyguards are all dead also.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=20 |
This thread offered you an opportunity to present "your evidence". You didn't take it.
The_Jazz and ngdawg, I am having trouble believing that neither of you "get it".
I operate with two repetitious themes on this forum. One is, "how do you know what you know?", and the other is that what comes to us from the "news" media is closer to the "Op" that was waged against Upton Sinclair in his 1934 California gubernatorial campaign, by the two major newspaper publishers, assisted by the "visuals" dutifully provided by the Hollywood studies, than "the liberal message" so often perceived and described by conservatives.
The evidence to support this is, THERE IS NO "LEFT" IN THE US. Upton Sinclair was the "leftist" candidate who made the furthest inroads towards election to a major office, and there is a glaring and detail rich record of what happened in response to his political rise.
Likewise, I've presented a compelling case, even without stooping to the extremely "loose" evidentiary standards that are routinely applied to the backgrounds of the Clintons and the Kennedys, that John McCain had to know that he was trading his Naval Officer's commission and career for a close realtionship with a "mobbed up" "soldier", once removed from the Arizona organized crime "king pin", Kemper Marley.
Consider that the revelations reported about McCain's father in law were published in 1977, they are not politically motivated in relation to McCain.
The revelations consist of two short articles, backed by photos of the newspaper pages where they originally appeared.
A "working" press would use them to make short work of McCain.
One more EFFING time....can someone who, in the past, has posted accusations of criminality against a Clinton or a Kennedy, post something that will compete, with the details of the origins of McCain's original political financial backing and the source of his extraordinarily great personal wealth.
McCain accepted a job with a major organized crime figure, and then accepted his political financing and ended up with an impressive chunk of the federal felon mob soldier's wealth.
Post the news reports of the criminal links and felony convictions of a Clinton or a Kennedy who is running for or has served as US president.
If you read the reporting, in your local paper, about James Hensley's mob activities, arrests and conviction, his documented effort to hide the fact from the NM Racing Commission that he had an equal partner in the Ruidoso Downs horse racing track who was reported to be an "operator" of the "Al Capone bookie wire service", and had himself worked for 8 years for the "boss" of the same wire service and the state liquor distribution monopoly, what would your opinion be of the man's son-in-law? Would your opinion be influenced if the son-in-law owed everything he had....his job and his wealth, to the mobster described in your local paper?
This should be simple to understand. Much evidence that McCain is too compromised, ethically, to be president, much less evidence that Clinton, or even Obama, is nearly as compromised.....UNLESS YOU POST WHAT YOU'VE GOT!