Free Republic

Sounds eerily familiar. Almost like that’s how all politics in the US works.

I love the hypocrisy of a film about objectivism that is objectively unsuccessful.

WWJW?

I’m not sure if you were being ironic when you did exactly what Dreher said you would.

A heartbreaking summary of the case:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/11/hana_williams_the_tragic_death_of_an_ethiopian_adoptee_and_how_it_could.html

Your numbers are wrong. The surge ended 1 Oct 2013, which set force levels to 63,000 “combat troops” not including special forces, engineers involved in redeployment of material, and other exception units. True numbers were far higher even then. Prior to 1 Oct, there had been ~78,000 ‘on the books’ troops in Afghanistan.

As of 1 December 2013:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/2013-12-01%20ISAF%20Placemat-final.pdf

“The number of American troops reached 101,000 in June 2011”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-us-troops-are-still-in-afghanistan/

The casualty numbers that you’re complaining about were a result of us trying to win the war. We went from not trying to trying to not trying. The number of operations conducted monthly from 2009 to early 2013 were night-and-day different from the quantity of operations conducted 2003-2008 or in 2013.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too; high force numbers, high operations tempo, and low casualty rates cannot all happen at the same time.

This chart is hilarious at best and intentionally deceptive at worst.

For one, troop levels in Afghanistan under Bush were so low as to be nearly useless, ranging from only 10,000 in 2003 to barely above 30,000 when he left office. Obama raised troop levels to 100,000 by July 2010. These new troops were sent to areas solidly held by the Taliban, areas that were completely ignored for 7 years by the Bush administration. When you let your enemy fortify its position, stockpile munitions, and rally the local populace for that long, and then you finally bother to go kill them, yes, men are going to die.

Second, the idea that US withdrawal from Afghanistan began in July of 2011 is ridiculous. In July of 2011 we had more than 100K troops in the country, four times the average during the Bush administration. The troop surge in Afghanistan was still in progress and did not end until 1 October 2013, when troop levels dropped to 63,000. That was still more than double the number of troops than Bush had.

If you want to bash Obama for his legitimate failures, by all means, there are plenty of them, go on ahead. Blaming him for actually focusing on Afghanistan and fighting the enemy in their strongholds, however, is completely absurd.

In the case of this child who died, it was determined that the cause of death was a tropical disease.

No. The cause of death was hypothermia. The tropical disease thing was a lie.



Just to make sure you’re not my godson, could you tell me whether your wife’s name is Dana and whether she is expecting a baby next month?

If I answer without addressing your question, is that evidence that I really am your godson? If so, purple monkey dishwasher.

Lying requires a complicit coroner, even before he knew he needed to be complicit.

Wait, the coroner wasn't complicit? How did he know to omit the evidence, thus giving evidence of lack of evidence which is actually evidence of evidence?



It’s the same thing that ruined Obama’s documentation crimes.

Perhaps with time, these conspirators will learn that the worst evidence that they can leave is no evidence at all. That's the surest type of evidence!



The quickest way for anybody to end the questions about Breitbart’s death would have been to do the full examination

Excellent suggestion. We should establish some sort of procedure for examination of human remains after death in order to determine the cause of death.



If this was just a normal heart attack, then it should be fairly easy to clear up these questions.

Yes, I presume that if it had been a normal heart attack, the coroner would have found, for example, an enlarged heart, severely narrowed arteries, and stray heart cells in his lungs.

So... instead of lying, which would have been easier or at least less convolution, the conspiracists are intentionally leaving a trail of evidence for you to follow?

I find it unlikely that the coroner would write a note that the clothing did not accompany the body on every single autopsy while also knowing that his technician unclothed the body and kept the clothes. Seems vastly simpler to just not mention of the clothes if you’re not going to talk about them.

The thing I find strangest about your theory, to be honest, is that despite the overall size and sophistication of the conspiracy required to actually do it, you seem to think that the coroner would need some strange logical ‘gotcha’ trick in order to hide the truth. Couldn’t he just... lie?

So... when he says that no clothing accompanied the body, you think that he meant that clothing accompanied the body?



With that revelation, I think I've solved this case. You see, when the coroner said that Breitbart was dead, he actually meant that he was alive. The autopsy is what really killed him, the coroner is the murderer, and the autopsy report is a confession.

So you would not say that it COULDN’T be a Soros-related attack, just like I would not say it HAD TO BE a Soros-related attack.


Yes.

Also, you would not say that he couldn't have seen a brontosaurus and been so terrified that he dropped dead. And I couldn't say that he hadn't been abducted and replaced by an amazingly lifelike mannequin. Just because many things are all possible does not mean that they are all equally likely. In the interests of time and sanity, most people choose to limit themselves to things which are both possible and probable.


Why do you think the coroner said nothing about checking for that potential piece of evidence?


Because if the coroner decided to list all of the things he didn't find instead of just the things he found, he would have died of old age before he finished writing and then you'd have had another coincidence.

When someone asks what you did yesterday, do you tell them the things you did or the things you didn't do?

Also significant is that the coroner had the clothes Breitbart was wearing at the time he died.

Quoting from page 6 of the autopsy:

The body was not clothed and no clothing accompanied the body.

Nope.

So long as you’re assuming it is a person who is part of a group and not literally assuming that it is a whole group of people. If you are automatically assuming it’s a conspiracy, then, yes by definition that would kind of make you a conspiracy theorist.

Or, y’know, if you assumed that the Postmaster General is actually a general and has declared war via the mail. That would also put you in the realm of conspiracy theory.

This is another reply to a post from another thread which I'm attempting to steer back onto the rails of this thread. Apologize for any confusion.


BTW, who do you think sent live explosives to Joe Arpaio, and if you had gone as far as the evidence trail could initially take you, what reasoning would you use to look for potential suspects?

Start by immediately assuming that this must tie in to the vast conspiracy which I already know in my heart exists.



Oh, woops, you asked what I would do. Well, then: If I'm completely out of evidence and haven't found crap, I would make some assumptions based on past mail bombers. Smart, maladjusted person who feels like he was wronged by the Sheriff in the past. I'd start with everyone he's ever locked up... there's been quite a bit of violence against criminal justice department types lately, and a lot of times it's a past perp. Could have been someone who saw the news about the prosecutors getting wacked in Texas and decided that was a good idea.

If you run out of people with a specific grudge, you're basically hosed because 'well educated person who has a bad opinion of Sheriff Joe based on watching the evening news' is an awfully big net to cast. At that point, I'd watch and wait for the person to try again.

I'm replying to you over here where the conversation started rather than continue to hose up that other thread for no apparent reason.


The coroner put out an autopsy which gave no clue of ever having looked for the only clinical sign of an assassination of the type that had been discussed as potentially being used on Breitbart: a small red entry hole.

You mean, the coroner found no evidence of the sign of the thing for which there is no evidence that it ever happened? I see your point; that much no evidence of anything must certainly be evidence of something! (No, I don't actually see your point.)

The coroner put out an autopsy which gave no clue of ever not having looked for the clinical sign of an assassination. There's just as much evidence for him looking as for him not looking, but it seems to be that because he didn't find the thing you expected (hoped) that he would find, that means he didn't look. I think that says more about you than it does about the coroner.

The coroner also found 60-80% narrowing of major arteries consistent with congestive heart failure. Chemicals that cause heart attacks do not also (after the guy is dead, somehow) then go on to perpetrate a cover up by creating a condition that could have caused a heart attack all on its own. In order to square this with your theory, the assassin would have had to use a Delorean dart which traveled back in time midair to strike Breitbart ten years ago and begin clogging his arteries.


What more needs to be added to all that, before you would consider it worthy of investigation?

An actual piece of evidence. Please note: lack of evidence is not evidence of evidence. Not looking for evidence is also not evidence of evidence. Basically, everything that is not evidence is not evidence.

. . .

Did you really just raise a 30 month old thread from the dead so that you could reply to me? Okay, well then:






You seem to be having some difficulty differentiating between evidence and coincidence. Would you like help?


Evidence:
The fact that this girl died of hypothermia outside her house is evidence.

The fact that she lost 30 pounds is evidence.


Coincidence:
The fact that she was found dead on 12 May, the same day that Charles Lindberg, Jr., was found dead, is a coincidence. It does not mean that the killer of the Lindberg baby struck again 79 years later.

The fact that she was found outside, which is where squirrels live, does not mean that a squirrel killed her.


I hope I've been helpful.

Aha, well now you've stumbled into my area of expertise. You see, I'm a coincidence theorist, and you have excellent - no, better than that - airtight evidence of a coincidence. We can go ahead and say that this is definitively, inarguably a coincidence.

Frighteningly, the government is responsible for thousands of coincidences every single day. It's unconcionable. They must be stopped.

Looking at key figures pasts it seems Valerie Jarrett’s past includes some unfortunate heart attack victims - i.e. her ex-husband and his next wife.


You've broken the code! All we need to do to identify nefarious government operatives is find all the people who know someone who had a heart attack!