Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons - the evidence you never saw

[Truth-Bringer]

Unlike you, I don't claim to be completely unbiased. As I outlined in a prior post, I think Clinton was a relatively decent president though we must wait for history to really make an accurate assessment.

Decent President... So in other words, you thought he did a pretty good job. You'd like for history to give him a thumbs up - especially since you voted for him, or would have voted for him if you were old enough... I still think you're a teenager.

Anyway, being proven as being behind the murder of one of his staff members would kind of destroy that image...now wouldn't it?

So when are you going to stop pretending you are unbiased and objective?

I am not biased in favor of either of the two major parties, unlike you. I wouildn't mind seeing Bush or Cheney investigated further.

So, in other words, you only believe in following some money?

No, that's not what I said at all.

Who paid for all these people to suddenly come forth?

Ah....... So someone has paid these women? They haven't existed for any other President, but for your dear lover Clinton, someone must be paying them because Clinton is such a great guy... ROTFL.

If you claim they were paid, THEN PRODUCE AND PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

And of course - no one else could possibly be lying

More of your irrational crap. No, it doesn't mean that no one else could be lying, but it doesn't mean that Bill Clinton isn't a proven, convicted liar on multiple counts. If other people are lying in your opinion, then YOU NEED TO PRODUCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY LIED. That evidence is conclusive with Bill Clinton. We know he will lie repeatedly to cover his ass.

Now go ahead, call me a Clinton apologist for daring to contradict your conspiracy theory.

I'll rightly call you a Clinton apologist, because you are one. Again, here you are for 20 pages defending this man non-stop, against information you claim is utterly baseless. If it's baseless, then why bother? I rest my case.

 

[Coyote]

I said you demonstrate your low level of intelligence constantly, and you keep proving me right... It's just pointless to try and talk any sense into you. One, because your love of Clinton is so great - not the man himself, but most of the political views he represents. Plus, you just don't want to see the Democrats damaged because of your hatred for Bush and the Republicans.

I'm an independent. I actually like certain Republicans and dislike certain Democrats. I am a liberal. Obviously. But there are certain conservative and even libertarian viewpoints I am in agreement with. Unlike you - I don't think I'm an ideologue.

Do I hate Bush and the "neocons" who comprise much of his administration? You bet. And unlike you - I'm honest enough to admit it.

Do I want or not want to see the Democrats damaged? If I feel if individuals conducted themselves badly enough I want them out - as individuals - but with all politicians, of all parties - I think it is important to look at the whole picture not just judge them on one small piece. Are you even capable of overcoming your hatred enough to do that? I doubt it. You can't even admit hatred.

It's especially important to make those determinations on sound evidence - not conspiracy theories, not internet hearsay, amateur detective work and innuendos, not witchhunts. Sound evidence says Clinton perjured himself. The rest is bull**** until proven in a court of law. Remember - what the law says - innocent until proven guilty or do you think it only applies to some people (those you like?).

At this time, the only Congressmen I have serious respect for are the 27 Republicans and Democrats who voted against the war.

And two, because you believe you know what you're talking about, and you're clueless. Case in point, Congress ultimately didn't hold Nixon to task... He resigned to deny them impeachment. My point is that President's can thwart their will and stop criminal prosecutions. And Gerald Ford did just that by then pardoning Nixon so that Congress couldn't pursue him.

It doesn't matter that he resigned rather than impeached. Talk about clueless. Your quest for "justice" (better termed "vengeance") doesn't care a bit about whether an action is good for the country as a whole as long as you get your piece of meat. Nixon resigned a broken, humiliated man. Impeachment, in the context of the times (maybe you are too young to remember this) would have torn an already damaged country apart and served no good purpose. Congress did it's job. And Ford did something that took more balls and moral conscience then you could possibly understand. He made a politically unpopular decision (that would haunt his career for the rest of his life) for the good of the country. Not many people would do that.

What would further investigations have uncovered? We'll never know... Nixon was pure authoritarian scum, so I have no doubt there were a lot of skeletons in his closet.

I doubt there is a single politician out there with out skeletons. If you think so, you are incredibly naive. Your quest for public vengeance overcomes good sense and more - the concept of a greater good.

 

[Coyote]

Decent President... So in other words, you thought he did a pretty good job. You'd like for history to give him a thumbs up - especially since you voted for him, or would have voted for him if you were old enough... I still think you're a teenager.

Yes, I thought he did a decent job. But as I stated, that is my opinion. I am perfectly willing to wait until history passes it's judgement as, unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to presume to know everything. Would I "like" for history to give him a thumbs up? It doesn't matter to me one way or the other as long as it's an honest accounting and we are far to close to the original events to be able to give an honest accounting. I voted for Carter too and he ended up being one of the worst President's ever (though that might be surpassed by Bush). Reality is that sometimes you vote for a good one, sometimes a bad one, sometimes it just seems that way and you have to stand back and wait for history to make it's judgement. I don't think you are old enough (or mature enough) to understand that.

Anyway, being proven as being behind the murder of one of his staff members would kind of destroy that image...now wouldn't it?

No it wouldn't because I don't have an image to defend I'm perfectly happy to let history make it's call and accept it. I also try not to base my opinions on conspiracy theories, poorly constructed logic or emotional hearsay - there are just too many red flags. I also value common sense and common sense says that 3 seperate investigations including one led by and funded by a hostile GoP controlled Congress failed to come up with the conclusion you so badly want. Now who's image is really in danger here?

I am not biased in favor of either of the two major parties, unlike you. I wouildn't mind seeing Bush or Cheney investigated further.

No. You are biased against both of the major parties. That doesn't make you unbiased.

No, that's not what I said at all.

Your posts say otherwise since you completely avoid the other money trail.

Ah....... So someone has paid these women? They haven't existed for any other President, but for your dear lover Clinton, someone must be paying them because Clinton is such a great guy... ROTFL.

If you claim they were paid, THEN PRODUCE AND PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

Google it yourself. You will find that GoP special interest's groups paid for all of their expenses - legal and otherwise. There is no mystery there.

More of your irrational crap. No, it doesn't mean that no one else could be lying, but it doesn't mean that Bill Clinton isn't a proven, convicted liar on multiple counts. If other people are lying in your opinion, then YOU NEED TO PRODUCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY LIED. That evidence is conclusive with Bill Clinton. We know he will lie repeatedly to cover his ass.

Once again you are not being logical.

First: Clinton was proven in a court of law to lie once - he committed perjury. This is undeniable and inarguable. That is the only instance where you can say that with certainty as he was under oath.

Secondly - despite what those other people said, no convictions resulted from it. Therefore they were either wrong, mistaken, or lying. And keep in mind how easy it is to claim things like sexual harrassment - there is an enormous grey area that includes consent.

Those two things are the only things you can be 100% certain of in relation to lying.

The other illogical fallacy is this: just because one person is known to lie doesn't mean that the other person is telling the truth.

I'll rightly call you a Clinton apologist, because you are one. Again, here you are for 20 pages defending this man non-stop, against information you claim is utterly baseless. If it's baseless, then why bother? I rest my case.

You started a debate and continued it for 20 pages. You just can't stand it when someone contradicts you can you? That makes me a Clinton apologist? No, I simply despise poorly constructed irrational conspiracy theories and I despise witchhunts. I did the same for Bush and 9/11. I despise him, but he certainly didn't deliberately engineer 9/11.

To bad you can't be intellectually honest and have to resort to name calling and other childish behavior.

 

[Coyote]

Slight correction...I was counting back and realized I did NOT vote for Carter, I was one year too young. But, I'll admit - I so wanted to, I thought he was so honest and so ethical...I kept telling my parents vote for him!!!!

Just goes to show how naive we can be when we are young and that honest and ethical (which I still firmly believe he is) doesn't equal a good President :?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Once again you are not being logical.

First: Clinton was proven in a court of law to lie once - he committed perjury. This is undeniable and inarguable. That is the only instance where you can say that with certainty as he was under oath.

Once again, you are skewing the truth. Clinton lied to the american people on national TV - verifiable. He lied about Gennifer Flowers - verifiable due to her audio tapes. And the list goes on... One doesn't have to be under oath to be proven a liar.

You're a really sick truth-twister, Coyote. And I'm sick of reading your tripe.

You really need to take off your blue dress and your black wig, get up off your knees, and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.

Keep swallowing his dogma and you'll wind up in the next Starr Report when he's First Husband.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

 

[Coyote]

Once again, you are skewing the truth. Clinton lied to the american people on national TV - verifiable. He lied about Gennifer Flowers - verifiable due to her audio tapes. And the list goes on... One doesn't have to be under oath to be proven a liar.

You're a really sick truth-twister, Coyote. And I'm sick of reading your tripe.

You really need to take off your blue dress and your black wig, get up off your knees, and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.

Keep swallowing his dogma and you'll wind up in the next Starr Report when he's First Husband.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

And that is all you can come up with? Pathetic.

 

[Popeye]

Once again, you are skewing the truth. Clinton lied to the american people on national TV - verifiable. He lied about Gennifer Flowers - verifiable due to her audio tapes. And the list goes on... One doesn't have to be under oath to be proven a liar.

You're a really sick truth-twister, Coyote. And I'm sick of reading your tripe.

You really need to take off your blue dress and your black wig, get up off your knees, and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.

Keep swallowing his dogma and you'll wind up in the next Starr Report when he's First Husband.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

Gennifer Flowers? Financed by Republican groups, she is a proven liar and money grubber.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/032798Gennifer.html

 

[Coyote]

Gennifer Flowers? Financed by Republican groups, she is a proven liar and money grubber.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/032798Gennifer.html

hahaha...I love you Popeye


Lots of liars running around....

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Gennifer Flowers? Financed by Republican groups, she is a proven liar and money grubber.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/032798Gennifer.html

ROTFL... http://www.americanpolitics.com - clearly an ultra liberal site.

Note in this piece it's all a bunch of out right hatred and opinion. No facts to back up any of their assertions - no sources, no cites. I love their points on the audio tapes. She was offered money for them. So what????????????? You've got the President caught in a clear lie on those tapes - which your article doesn't even bother to mention. It just ignores that unpleasant fact and continues to bash Flowers. In fact, it can't refute ANY of the details she exposed about Bill Clinton. It doesn't dare try, given Clinton's history...

Yes, it's shocking that a liberal website that supports Democrats and a liberal author that supports Democrats would attack Gennifer Flowers and defend Bill Clinton.

Absolutely shocking...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

And that is all you can come up with?

That's all you're worth.

Now get up off your knees and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.

Popeye wants his turn.

 

[Coyote]

ROTFL... http://www.americanpolitics.com - clearly an ultra liberal site.

Note in this piece it's all a bunch of out right hatred and opinion. No facts to back up any of their assertions - no sources, no cites. I love their points on the audio tapes. She was offered money for them. So what????????????? You've got the President caught in a clear lie on those tapes - which your article doesn't even bother to mention. It just ignores that unpleasant fact and continues to bash Flowers. In fact, it can't refute ANY of the details she exposed about Bill Clinton. It doesn't dare try, given Clinton's history...

Yes, it's shocking that a liberal website that supports Democrats and a liberal author that supports Democrats would attack Gennifer Flowers and defend Bill Clinton.

Absolutely shocking...

This coming a from a person who:

- posts material that is primarily subjective, hearsay, outright opinion and fallacious cause and effect relationships

- utterly ignores evidence to the contrary, the fact that her star performers are themselves caught up in lies

- posts material from a conspiracy theory website and from other sources who clearly hate Clinton and are being paid to come forth (of course it can't possibly be biased )

- claims she doesn't hate Clinton yet is contradicted by her own postings

- claims she doesn't believe in the Clinton body count yet refers to "Arkanside"

- and has the unmitigated gall to criticize Popeye's source

This is hysterical! I'll say this - girl, you have balls, even if all you know how to do is play with them.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

This coming a from a person who:

- posts material that is primarily subjective, hearsay, outright opinion and fallacious cause and effect relationships

Certainly, I have posted numerous opinoins - but I have also posted facts. Again, this is another appeal to ridicule.

- utterly ignores evidence to the contrary, the fact that her star performers are themselves caught up in lies

I can go through that list on Gennifer Flowers and show that they are all mischaracterizations or exagerations, just as I did with the one point above. It is a hit piece - and it was written by die hard Clinton supporters - who conveniently fail to mention the verified audio tapes of their lover Clinton lying his a$$ off.

And gee, do you think she might have taken some money since her connections in Arkansas would have been totally severed by Bill Clinton? Gee, do you think she might have been blacklisted for future jobs, since she had relied on Clinton for employment in the past?

- posts material from a conspiracy theory website and from other sources who clearly hate Clinton and are being paid to come forth

My sources also indict numerous Republicans.... And that's a huge problem for you, since the source above has only good things to say about Democrats or liberals. THAT is clear bias.

- claims she doesn't hate Clinton yet is contradicted by her own postings

I've explained my position on this, and yet you still feel the need to try and mischaracterize it. You really need to get a life.

- claims she doesn't believe in the Clinton body count yet refers to "Arkanside"

ROTFL. You're really stretching here. No, I don't believe the entire Clinton body count is accurate. But that doesn't mean I can't use a term that they use also. The term was created prior to the Clinton body count.

- and has the unmitigated gall to criticize Popeye's source

LOL. STFU. His source did a complete hit piece and is a biased piece of @#$%. It is a source that loves all things Democrat and hates all things Republican. Again, the sources I have presented have made allegations against both Democrats and Republican.

This is hysterical!

No, what's funny is that you still have Clinton's dogma in your mouth. You really need to take it out of your mouth.

 

[Coyote]

Certainly, I have posted numerous opinoins - but I have also posted facts. Again, this is another appeal to ridicule.

Sometimes you mix them up.

I can go through that list on Gennifer Flowers and show that they are all mischaracterizations or exagerations, just as I did with the one point above. It is a hit piece - and it was written by die hard Clinton supporters - who conveniently fail to mention the verified audio tapes of their lover Clinton lying his a$$ off.

This is the statement which pretty much ruins your credibility here. You claim this is all mischarecterzations or exagerations and that is was a "hit piece" written by "die hard Clinton supporters" yet - when presented with similar pieces concerning Clinton you refuse to acknowledge it might be biased or a hit piece or a witchhunt. And all of this - plus your frequent bringing up of Clinton in other debates makes your statement "I don't hate Clinton" a real joke.

And gee, do you think she might have taken some money since her connections in Arkansas would have been totally severed by Bill Clinton? Gee, do you think she might have been blacklisted for future jobs, since she had relied on Clinton for employment in the past?

You are stretching it pretty thin here.

My sources also indict numerous Republicans.... And that's a huge problem for you, since the source above has only good things to say about Democrats or liberals. THAT is clear bias.

And here you make a logical fallacy. Like with Flowers - just because one person lied about something (Clinton) doesn't mean the other person (Flowers) is telling the truth. Here - just because your source indicts Republicans doesn't mean it isn't biased. The world isn't made up of only Democrats and Republicans or Conservatives and Liberals. You are creating false dichotomies. For example a source that is Liberatarion in outlook could well have a clear bias against both Republicans and Democrats - and it isn't any less of a bias.

I've explained my position on this, and yet you still feel the need to try and mischaracterize it. You really need to get a life.

I find it amusing. Your statement "I don't hate Clinton" is specifically and frequently contradicted by your other postings. You spend an inordinate amount of energy posting about his evils (far more then the evils of Bush & Co. whom you also claim to despise). And yet your position is being mischaracterized?

I don't think so. I say she protesteth too much.

ROTFL. You're really stretching here. No, I don't believe the entire Clinton body count is accurate. But that doesn't mean I can't use a term that they use also. The term was created prior to the Clinton body count.

Was it? A quick google of "Arkancide" placed it alongside "Clinton body count" in many articles and referenced many aspects of the "body count". Nice lie. Try again.

LOL. STFU. His source did a complete hit piece and is a biased piece of @#$%. It is a source that loves all things Democrat and hates all things Republican. Again, the sources I have presented have made allegations against both Democrats and Republican.

You have quite the potty mouth when people don't agree with you. Again - there are more sides then simply Democrats and Republicans. Simply because a source references both doesn't mean it is unbiased you silly cow Nor does it mean it's wrong.

No, what's funny is that you still have Clinton's dogma in your mouth. You really need to take it out of your mouth.

There you go again. You really need some new lines.

 

[bododie]

Wow. And here I thought all this time that he just turned to stone and died because he looked at Chelsea! Boy was I wrong.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The Clinton Chronicles

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

This originally came out at the beginning of Clinton's first term in the White House. It goes through the details of his criminal history in Arkansas. It demonstrates in detail how they buried all the evidence and subverted the law.

The Clinton lovers will of course rush in to defend their master, but just watch this documentary and make up your own mind. Gullible Clinton lovers would have everyone believe that all these people are lying and "Honest Bill" is telling nothing but the truth.