Lobbyist Investigating Seth Rich Murder Is Run Over by Car, Shot Twice

This_person

Well-Known Member
Your two guys are conspiracy theorists who took it upon themselves to attempt to prove their theory about a vast left wing conspiracy

While I disagree, Burkman (who actually started the investigation) could reasonably be considered a conspiracy theorist.

Where you are as wrong as Vrai or I (or everyone else) is about whether or not the kid was going to shoot anyone else is that you are ASSUMING Doherty joined the group not for just having a job, not for the potential of actively trying to misinform the investigation, but because he is a believer in what the outcome of the investigation would be.

The article never suggests such a thing. So, using your logic and tactics in discussing these things, you are just wrong.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Well you need to pay better attention. Even if we just go on the last week alone why would Trump congratulate Putin despite every one of his advisors telling him not to?

Probably the same reason Obama did the same thing. The Obama White House repeatedly said Putin's first election was filled with fraud; then, when Putin won, Obama called to congratulate him and talk about things on which the US and Russia could work together.

Or, was Obama a secret colluder with Russia, too? Is that your contention?

BS. Why don't you care that he flagrantly disregards the emoluments clause?

Because I believe that people staying in his hotels puts just as much in his pockets as the sales of Obama's books to foreigners put in his pockets in comparison to their net worths. No president has been mandated to stop selling their products when they became president - ever - in the history of the United States. Why would Trump be any different?

[why don't you care when he] Lies literally multiple times a day, puts our country in jeopardy with his lack of knowledge, tact, diplomacy ?

Um, I do. When it matters, I speak out about how much I don't like it. Just like I did with Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

Setch Rich, Pizzagate, Uranium One? The lie that Clinton laughed at a child victim of rape?

Birtherism? Obama being a secret Muslim.

All I say is Seth Rich, Pizza-gate, and U1 are worthy of investigation. Those have actual crimes associated with them. If a solid investigation proves nothing happened (or can't find evidence of something happening), then the investigation should be wrapped up. Just like the Trump-Russia collusion investigation should be wrapped up, as there has not once been an indication of collusion, and much evidence to show Russia was doing (during the feckless Obama administration that literally ridiculed the idea of Russian meddling in the United States at all) is the same thing that Russia has done for decades in the United States.

Clinton laughed about lie detector tests, as I recall, because she was positive that her client was a child rapist and he beat the test. She found that funny. She attacked the victim in that case, because she believed her client to be guilty, which is why she found him beating the lie detector test amusing. This is not disputable, this is on tape. She didn't laugh at the victim, she laughed at the process (lie detector) being faulty for a person she believed to be guilty after attacking the victim with seemingly made up "points" to help her client beat the rap. Now, you would argue that everyone deserves a defense (even the guilty), and on a systematic level I would fully agree with you. But, you also have made the point that just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical, and you don't want unethical people in charge of our government - which means you would have been conspicuously against Sec Clinton even running for president. But, you're a hypocrite so you were not against her.

I am not a birther. I have repeatedly said I think that BHO, Jr., was likely born in HI. Now, it is indisputable that BHO, Jr., fought proving that in a court of law on many occasions, costing himself millions of dollars to do so, and that the eventual BC he provided has been debunked of authenticity by friends of BHO and foes alike. My guess is, there is something else on the BC for which he has a desire to keep personal. That said, girls like to be around momma when they have a baby if possible, and this was possible. So, common sense says he was born in HI.

I've never once claimed Obama was a secret or open or any other kind of Muslim. It's indisputable that he was raised in environments that would make him sympathetic to Muslims, thus giving him the best position of anyone in the world to try and solve the disputes between Islamic terror and the western world. He did exactly zip to accomplish that, but he was better suited than any other world leader - past or present - to resolve the issues.
 

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
despite all of the clear evidence.

You mean the evidence that the costly probe can't find? Hillary losing the election isn't evidence of a crime. It's evidence that 1 side is out of touch with middle class Americans.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
You mean the evidence that the costly probe can't find? Hillary losing the election isn't evidence of a crime. It's evidence that 1 side is out of touch with middle class Americans.


Did I miss Muellers lastest indictment?

By my count four Trump associates have been indicted and a dozen Russians
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Did I miss Muellers lastest indictment?

By my count four Trump associates have been indicted and a dozen Russians

... And none of the four were charged with "colluding"

keep trying little buckaroo.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
While I disagree, Burkman (who actually started the investigation) could reasonably be considered a conspiracy theorist.

Where you are as wrong as Vrai or I (or everyone else) is about whether or not the kid was going to shoot anyone else is that you are ASSUMING Doherty joined the group not for just having a job, not for the potential of actively trying to misinform the investigation, but because he is a believer in what the outcome of the investigation would be.

The article never suggests such a thing. So, using your logic and tactics in discussing these things, you are just wrong.
I’m not buying the ‘he was a plant’ conspiracy theory either.

Are you really trying to argue that the guy who, according to the story, ‘thought the Profiling Project’ belonged to him didn’t believe in the conspiracy at its heart?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I’m not buying the ‘he was a plant’ conspiracy theory either.

Are you really trying to argue that the guy who, according to the story, ‘thought the Profiling Project’ belonged to him didn’t believe in the conspiracy at its heart?

Well, if I were to try and make sure that no one knew what happened, I would have people sympathetic to me do the investigation, acting like they're all about "truth", but they're not. That's been the claim of ufologists with respect to many of the "crazy" UFO sightings and such. It's not a crazy idea to happen.

But, no, I'm not trying to argue anything other than that the article never said he was a conspiracy theorist - rather, it is an assumption that you are making from the situations described in one of the articles. While you may be somewhat justified in making the assumption, it's still an assumption. You are making claims based on your interpretation of the data, and those claims are not directly supported by anything but inference.

That's my only argument.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Did I miss Muellers lastest indictment?

By my count four Trump associates have been indicted and a dozen Russians

Two of the four Americans were indicted for issues related to times BEFORE they were a part of the Trump campaign. The other two are a guy who says someone else says something that everyone else in the world already knew, and a guy charged with lying about the content of a meeting with a Russian official AFTER the election - when he was acting on behalf of the President-elect, not a campaign discussion.

Again, not even close to any evidence of collusion with the Russians.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Well, if I were to try and make sure that no one knew what happened, I would have people sympathetic to me do the investigation, acting like they're all about "truth", but they're not. That's been the claim of ufologists with respect to many of the "crazy" UFO sightings and such. It's not a crazy idea to happen.

But, no, I'm not trying to argue anything other than that the article never said he was a conspiracy theorist - rather, it is an assumption that you are making from the situations described in one of the articles. While you may be somewhat justified in making the assumption, it's still an assumption. You are making claims based on your interpretation of the data, and those claims are not directly supported by anything but inference.

That's my only argument.

No, you have had about 5 arguments, they have all been BS. The first was some conspiracy that even you couldn’t connect to the op. Not that you haven’t tried.

It's not a surprise at all. Podesta promised Rich would be dealt with in e-mail, Rich was dealt with, and the vast majority of people who have evidence against the Clintons are so distraught by it they kill themselves (one stripped himself naked, beat himself black and blue, climbed into a duffel bag and locked it from the outside to commit his suicide) or are the victims of random acts of completely unrelated violence and die. Or, their husbands are killed. You know, just the normal stuff that happens to us all.


So I am right back to














Wait for it




















Bwhahahaha
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
No, you have had about 5 arguments, they have all been BS. The first was some conspiracy that even you couldn’t connect to the op. Not that you haven’t tried.

My only argument is that, if we use your logic, there is no "fact" that supports your claim that Doherty is a conspiracy theorist. You are making an assumption based on the indications - just like Vrai and I (and pretty much everyone but you) made on another topic.

As to your "Bwahaha", you said that had nothing to do with the topic. So, you are now making an argument that my non-topic comments are associated with my on-topic comments. You have to pick one way or another - you can't have it both ways.

You try, but you always fail. Your commitment to the attempt is admirable, but it's still failure.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
My only argument is that, if we use your logic, there is no "fact" that supports your claim that Doherty is a conspiracy theorist. You are making an assumption based on the indications - just like Vrai and I (and pretty much everyone but you) made on another topic.

As to your "Bwahaha", you said that had nothing to do with the topic. So, you are now making an argument that my non-topic comments are associated with my on-topic comments. You have to pick one way or another - you can't have it both ways.

You try, but you always fail. Your commitment to the attempt is admirable, but it's still failure.

Bwhahahaha

Even you have to get dizzy making up that pretzel logic.

I get it, you are butthurt over getting shown your ass in that other thread. Get over it.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Bwhahahaha

Even you have to get dizzy making up that pretzel logic.

I get it, you are butthurt over getting shown your ass in that other thread. Get over it.

Where would that be? In that other thread, you made the argument I'm making now. Are you saying you're getting shown your ass in this one, or, is it more likely you realize you're getting played in this one to show what an ass you were in the other, thus making you lose twice?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Where would that be? In that other thread, you made the argument I'm making now. Are you saying you're getting shown your ass in this one, or, is it more likely you realize you're getting played in this one to show what an ass you were in the other, thus making you lose twice?

You going :lalala: doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of evidence the guy is a conspiracy theorist. Being second in command while thinking and acting like he is in command of an investigation into a conspiracy tHeory is plenty.

Like I said, I know you are butthurt, but let it go.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You going :lalala: doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of evidence the guy is a conspiracy theorist. Being second in command while thinking and acting like he is in command of an investigation into a conspiracy tHeory is plenty.

Like I said, I know you are butthurt, but let it go.

It never said he was a conspiracy theorist. There may be evidence that leads to the assumption that he is, but it doesn't say it and there are other reasonable assumptions, like the guy just wanted a job.

Sorry, you're either wrong here or there, but it has to be one or the other for you to not be hypocritical.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
It never said he was a conspiracy theorist. There may be evidence that leads to the assumption that he is, but it doesn't say it and there are other reasonable assumptions, like the guy just wanted a job.

Sorry, you're either wrong here or there, but it has to be one or the other for you to not be hypocritical.

Nope, you are just retarded.

An article about the second in command of the KKK doesn’t need to spell out that he is a white supremicist. The fact that he is acting in that position says it all. Troll on :yay:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Nope, you are just retarded.

An article about the second in command of the KKK doesn’t need to spell out that he is a white supremicist. The fact that he is acting in that position says it all. Troll on :yay:

This guy just had a job. :lmao: You just can't acknowledge you're a hypocrite
 
Top