But B, when you postulate conspiracies involving hundreds of people of both parties. Conspiracies that have managed to stay perfectly leak-tight for years.
Well, a person can expect to get needled a bit when they do that.
butterdezillion, I'm sorry if post #615 offended you, but it did not personally attack you or anyone else here. FR has rules against profanity and personal attacks but none that I am aware of against being snarky. What I was trying to convey is that I do think, quite frankly, that some of your theories are rather far-fetched. (For example, I honestly cannot conceive of all nine Supreme Court justices being threatened and not saying anything about it.) Having said all that, I genuinely did not mean to cause you any personal offense.
The conspiracies have not been leak-proof for a couple years. That’s what I’ve been saying. There’s all kinds of evidence of the particular individuals and agencies involved.
The Soros part is speculation; that I will grant. And I’ve tried to say outright that I don’t have proof of anything for that speculation. I’ve been prepared to be ridiculed on that because I don’t have the proof. And I am not offended by LL’s mockery because I expected it; that’s what you get when you post speculation without giving all your reasons. When I have the time to devote a couple weeks to putting all my reasons together perhaps I’ll do that. Mostly I wanted you to realize that politeness of verbiage isn’t necessarily the same thing as dealing with other people in a respectful way. Something I need to be reminded of also, because I have been really cranky lately.
But regarding the Soros speculation, the pieces of the puzzle fit, and there are things that just don’t make sense without the Soros piece.
For instance, why would Fox News submit to censorship of the eligibility issue at the threat of Obama annihilating them after the election, if by simply reporting the threats made Fox could have ensured that Obama sat in jail rather than the White House? The FCC threat by itself would be a vain threat. There had to be something more.
And why would Clarence Thomas, who prides himself on valuing the Constitution, admit that they were “evading” a valid and pressing Constitutional issue? It doesn’t make sense.
Why are the eligibility judges almost all doing things that are blatantly unethical during the time that they are presiding over these cases?
I don’t have 2 weeks right now to devote to this. I’m torn in a million different directions because there’s so much to do on the elgibility front as well as things at home. So I can’t give all my reasons now. I listed a few of the reasons I have these suspicions, in a very long post a while back; that’s what I had time for. Without all the dots and a wide-angle view, a newspaper looks like isolated dots that make no sense, but when more dots fill in the space and you step back to see it all together, an image forms.
Those who say that more dots actually makes a bigger, more unbelievable “conspiracy” have accepted an epistemology that ensures they will never be able to see a big picture that they can actually believe. If it has a lot of dots connected it’s incredible; if the dots don’t form solid lines there are too many holes in it. See what I mean?