First of all, that Cart" is full; Bodies are falling off by the wayside IF one is playing attention.
Secondly, this isn't a court of law; It's a forum where participants do NOT possess the legal avenues or access to "evidence". But what we DO possess is enough information from which to process logic, ability to connect dots, and sense and consideration of the tendencies and credibility of the accused. Not only that, we must also sift though those whose words and deeds appear to give the impression of performing damage-control while insisting the witness-free "coincidences" are necessarily just that.
"Move along -- nothing to see" and all that. Is that your mission here? Seriously?
What of them? [the tapestry of lies and “accidental” deaths from within the 0bama Administration...shutting up and shut down ALL witnesses]
Obama lies about some things, therefore he must be lying about this thing too? That’s not proper logic.
Uh, no. 0bama lies about EVERYTHING. You tripped up there, Comrade. And so do his loyal minions. Of course you would strongly disagree my assessment. But as a reminder to others, that "tapestry" happens to provide a rich historical profile of a rogue regime.
Also, if he is so hellbent on shutting up witnesses, then why are there so many witnesses who have already testified to malfeasance in his administration that are just walking around alive today?
Kinda hard to to be Germany, 1940 YET. The testimony and potential damage of witnesses of this regime are employees whose info is limited by either threats, coercion, deemed "classified", OR dismissed by corrupt, co-opted Hearing members. In your world, the regime is...all-benevolent.
Victims of "accidents" and "incidents" appear thus far to be private citizens or military performing duty outside of continental USA, and obviously deemed "imminent threats to our regime" today rather than tomorrow.
What was so special about Hastings, or any of your other “suspicious” deaths, that 0bama would assassinate them, but leave so many other loose ends hanging about?
I guess we may never know, eh? "Funny how that worked out!" say the ghosts of Breitbart, Breitbart's coroner, Hastings, and Seal Team 6.
Meh. Attacking a poster’s handle is usually the last resort of those who can’t come up with a decent argument.
Next time choose a less conspicuous handle than 'Boogieman'.
“First of all, that Cart” is full; Bodies are falling off by the wayside IF one is playing attention.”
Well, that’s pretty much meaningless as to the question at hand. IF you believe all of the other conspiracy theories that say Obama murdered X, Y, and Z, then it’s obvious that he likely murdered W too! Not very sound thinking there.
“Secondly, this isn’t a court of law; It’s a forum where participants do NOT possess the legal avenues or access to “evidence”.”
Well, then the conspiracy theorizers should stop bringing up legal terms and throwing them around improperly. “Evidence”, however, isn’t strictly a legal term. If you want me to believe something, I would like either evidence or a logical supporting argument (hopefully both), even though I’m not sitting on a court bench. If I were to start believing things without those prerequisites, I would be a fool.
“But what we DO possess is enough information from which to process logic, ability to connect dots, and sense and consideration of the tendencies and credibility of the accused.”
Again, you’re putting the cart before the horse. How can you have an “accused”, if you can’t even establish that a crime was committed? First things first.
“Not only that, we must also sift though those whose words and deeds appear to give the impression of performing damage-control while insisting the witness-free “coincidences” are necessarily just that.
“Move along — nothing to see” and all that. Is that your mission here? Seriously?”
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make that kind of backhand accusation. It happens on every thread where I don’t accept someone’s conspiracy theory without supporting evidence. Sorry, but some of us simply don’t buy into half-baked theories just because we dislike Obama. There’s plenty of very solid ground to attack him on without needing to resort to that and look like a bunch of loons.
“Uh, no. 0bama lies about EVERYTHING. You tripped up there, Comrade.”
Really, he lies about EVERYTHING? I know that sounds good, and you probably feel like you had a real “gotcha” moment, but come on. Even pathological liars do not actually lie with every syllable that comes out of their mouths. If you say Obama has zero credibility, and we have no reason to believe anything he says without verification, then I agree with that. If you say that every word out of his mouth must be a lie, then you are not thinking clearly.
“Kinda hard to to be Germany, 1940 YET. The testimony and potential damage of witnesses of this regime are employees whose info is limited by either threats, coercion, deemed “classified”, OR dismissed by corrupt, co-opted Hearing members.”
So, according to your logic, because you can imagine a reason Obama might have wanted to dispose of Hastings, he must have murdered him. However, all those other people that we know he had similar reasons to want to be rid of, but who haven’t been murdered, are just dismissable. There must have been some other, fill in the blank reason why he didn’t murder them. This is just imagination gone wild.
“In your world, the regime is...all-benevolent.”
I’ve never said anything of the sort. The fact that you have to resort to inventing words to put in my mouth in order to dismiss my points is pretty telling though.
“Next time choose a less conspicuous handle than ‘Boogieman’.”
Sure, next time I sign up to a site years in advance in order to lay the groundwork for schilling for some future regime that hasn’t been elected yet, I’ll keep that in mind. /s