if you go to snopes . com you will see thjem vigorously trying to defend the clintooney’s in this list, and tryign vigorously to discredit the list as beign nothign more than a made up ‘conspiracy list’ yet the snopes site doesn’t do one credible thing to discredit ANY of the claims made- and they simply gloss over details hoping you will be pursuaded that the clintooneys couldn’t possibly have gotten away with any of it- however all they really do is show they are librally biased and that petty attemopts at humiliatign thsoe who made thel ist aren’t beneath them-
Whiel there isn’t any hard proof of course- it sure is wierd how so many peopel died under mysteriosu circumstances who were inviolved with the clinooneys- How many peopel do you know who have had so many friends die under such brutal and mysterious conditions? The FACT is that there is an definately an unusually high number of wierd deaths that have surrounded the ‘royal couple’ for years- then umber is abnormally high- Sniopes can drone on all it likes, but they are obvious clintooney fans who didn’t liek hte fact that this unusually high number of mysterious deaths was linked to them-
Apparently the folsk at snopes are guillible enough to simply take the government at it’s word and claim that anyone who questions the ‘official reports of death’ are nothing more than conspiracy theorists- apparently snopes doesn’t realize that when powerful families are involved, that ANYTHING CAN AND WILL be covered up, and htat when thsoe cover-ups are thretened with exposure, thsoe inviovled will ‘mysteriously die’- which is exactly what seems to have happened here-
going htrough each point made by the snoeps site- they have groslly neglected certyain facts, and failed almost every time to prove that what they assert is infact true- they demand ‘facts’ from thsoe who made thel ists, but snopes exempt themselves from havign to provide facts when they make their coutneraerguments- Fori nstance, they talk abotu one car accident that ‘noone saw’ of a person connected to the bubba, but then intimate that it’s a false report, but the FACT is that NOONE SAW the accident so they can’t really claim it was just an accident themselves- but they sure do make that claim without ANY evidence to refute the original claim- on and on it goes with hte sniope’s claims- no evidence to back their claism up- they simpyl just take the government’s and coroner’s word for it apaprently not beleivign that ANYONE can be bought off
Anyways- her’s the nsopes list
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
for inastance the snopes site attempts to misdirect by saying ‘if they were bumping everyoen off, why arem onika and linda tripp still alive’ apparently thinkign that should put an end to the discussion however, the FACT is that because htese were suchj high profile cases there is infact no way thsoe two coudl have been bumped off because it woukld have DEFINATELY implicated bubba-
The sniopes site’s ‘explanations’ are very poorly htought out rebuttles- The only thing they got right really was the fact that ‘a couple of natural deaths had been thrown into the mix willy nilly’ That is true- they had- and most likely they were natural deaths and shouldn’t have been added to thel ist- however- it’s also TRUE that there is an artificially high number of deaths surrounding bubba- and it’s also true that MSM would never lift a finger to investigate ANY of them in an unbiased manner because they were facts abotu their beloved buddy
Snopes said ‘there were deaths by airplane- this is not unusual, as each year many small planes crash’ and this is true, however, again, the number of peopel closely associated with bubba who died in crashes is unsually high- and either bubba was them ost unlucky person in the world, and his friedns were them ost unlucky in the world, or perhaps maey, just possibly, soemthign else was goign on- I’ve nevr in my life had even one friend die in a plane crash- even a small plane crash- and iv’e certainly never had several die within just years of each other-
snopes then goes on to say ‘all the best lies make sure to mix a bit of truth in with htem’ which is EXACTLY what snopes did the whole way through the article- They gave you a bit of truth, but then left out key and valid points htroughout hteir ‘rebuttle’
Snopes prides itself on being a credible source of info, but in htis article at least, they let their liberal bias show throug loud and lcdear, and showed that perhaps they aren’t really intellectually capable of makign valid coutner arguments backed p by actaul facts- nearly everyoern on of their points has major problems with it- Another one “Clin was aqauinted with soem peopel who died. That’s all that can be made of this list”
Bzzzzt- nope! He was aquainted with a LOT of people who all died in a relatively short period of time around him, many of whom were personally and intimately associated with him in one fashion or another- and many of whom it appears were about to go public with info- Snopes FAILED to prove that htese folks were not abotu to go public- they just waved their hands and ridiculed thsoe who broguht the issue up-