I'm only having a discussion. Let us boil this down to the basics. There is a claim. The claim is insinuating that the Clintons are tied to at least 56 deaths with the motive being money, power, self preservation, whatever. That's quite a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support the claim in question. So far the only evidence being offered is a 1990s chain mail which is anecdotal at best. All nit picking and ball busting aside - It is not up to ME to go down and scratch names off the list rather the burden is on the person making the claim to show why all the names on the list support the claim. It seems someone else has already scratched a few off the list so you may want to direct your attention to them.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by FlexDawg

Member since Jan 2018

12812 posts

Posted on 7/26/19 at 12:35 pm to brooksbabino

the list shows 56....

Does anyone really believe that the clintons weren’t responsible for at least one of these deaths? I’d personally be shocked if the real number ended up below 10.

This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 12:37 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Flats

Member since Jul 2019

21913 posts

Posted on 7/26/19 at 12:44 pm to brooksbabino

quote:
I'm only having a discussion.

No you're not, you're just repeating saying you refute it.

1. You really mean reject (I think you've used both); you haven't actually refuted anything.
2. A discussion, to you, is comparing people to flat earthers and appeals to ridicule?

As I said, if the topic really doesn't interest you because you reject (not refute, you haven't done that) it, then it's curious you'd participate in the thread at all. It would appear that it interests you a lot and your main purpose is to ridicule the claim, because you think that accomplishes something. Explaining why Barry Seal doesn't belong on the list is a discussion.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 7/26/19 at 3:40 pm to brooksbabino

quote:
So far the only evidence being offered is a 1990s chain mail which is anecdotal at best

false. The email lists the evidence which is a matter of public record.

quote:
It is not up to ME to go down and scratch names off the list

false again. The list is brute fact. If you want your denial to have any credence, then yes. You would indeed need to go down the list with a rebuttal for each instance.