Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to it

[justdrew]

Back from nightly retirement to say this:
Justdrew, sorry, but you have zero credibility re: this.
Actually, regarding anything that might make Democrats look bad.
It's one thing to loathe Republicans more. Quite another to play defense for the Dems.
Let me ask you: Bill Clinton, was he an overseer of drug trafficking? Or, uh, not?
If you begin to explain that away then you'll be the first person I ever ignore.

Voting for the lesser of evils may be a necessity.
Not recognizing that one party's elite is an evil at all? Unacceptable.
You might as well be the ideological version of a hoaxer.

Ya I know it's dissonant to hear me not towing the conspirination's standard equivalency line, but I do not believe they are equivalent
one is the source of evil, the other is constrained, often threatened, sometimes killed. Do the math.
got a shitload of peeps making threats again right now in fact.

Those fuckers running Iran-contra wouldn't have had even a slight problem with threatening a governor in a variety of ways, above board and below.

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched."
-- George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter

Almost immediately, it became apparent that Mena enjoyed a special status. Every attempt to investigate met with interference. Investigator Russel Welch of the Arkansas Police was ordered to stay away from drug activity at the Mena Airport. Despite a public statement by then-Governor Bill Clinton that he was doing all he could to investigate allegations of CIA drug running at Mena, citizen's groups charged that funding was cut for any investigations that pointed at Mena, and petitioned the Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor to investigate drug running at Mena. He never did.

from: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.php

[FourthBase]

Dude, so you're saying Bill Clinton was above board, genuinely interested in exposing drug smuggling, just maybe coerced into cooperating maybe, but only coerced, never had anyone killed, all the stories about him doing evil shit are just smears from the vast right-wing conspiracy, Hillary is a good person, too, neither is part of any evil elite shenanigans, not willfully, neither is a willing part of a perverted national security agenda, neither is a puppet for huge special interests, no I don't mean unions, I mean military industrial drug cartel interests, neither is a handpicked Bilderbergery puppet, etc.? Seriously? Are you that blind? If so, you are literally no different than a hoaxer. You realize that, right? It's not about false equivalency, it's about common fucking sense, having sense enough to realize that the lesser evil, while lesser yes, is still fucking evil, too. But, you think no Democrats are evil? Are any, in your opinion? Blue dogs don't count. Name me an evil liberal Democrat. Chuck Schumer, perhaps? Prove you're not a drone.

[justdrew]

Dude, so you're saying Bill Clinton was above board, genuinely interested in exposing drug smuggling, just maybe coerced into cooperating maybe, but only coerced, never had anyone killed, all the stories about him doing evil shit are just smears from the vast right-wing conspiracy, Hillary is a good person, too, neither is part of any evil elite shenanigans, not willfully, neither is a willing part of a perverted national security agenda, neither is a puppet for huge special interests, no I don't mean unions, I mean military industrial drug cartel interests, neither is a handpicked Bilderbergery puppet, etc.? Seriously? Are you that blind? If so, you are literally no different than a hoaxer. You realize that, right? It's not about false equivalency, it's about common fucking sense, having sense enough to realize that the lesser evil, while lesser yes, is still fucking evil, too. But, you think no Democrats are evil? Are any, in your opinion? Blue dogs don't count. Name me an evil liberal Democrat. Chuck Schumer, perhaps? Prove you're not a drone.

dude, I'm not going to show you my papers, I surely got nothing to prove.

beyond that. Of course I'm not saying there are "none" - of course there must be, no doubt lots of infiltrators exist. Hopefully they will lose primary challenges in times to come. It's problematic isn't it?

as for the bilderburg group, I'm not particularly concerned about it. Some people invited to attend may indeed be malfactors, but it seems likely that such a thing as it is needed and is better that we know about it than it be a total secret.

Now I don't have anything nice to say about the Business Roundtable, one I don't hear brought up too often by the Jonestowners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, sees the role of international relations forums and social clubs such as the Bilderberg group as a place to share ideas, reach consensus, and create social cohesion within a power elite. He adds that this understanding of forums and clubs such as the Bilderberg group fits with the perceptions of the members of the elite. Domhoff warns progressives against getting distracted by conspiracy theories which demonize and scapegoat such forums and clubs. He argues that the opponents of progressivism in the United States are conservatives within the corporate elite and the Republican Party. It is more or less the same people who belong to forums and clubs such as the Bilderberg group, but it puts them in their most important roles, as capitalists and political leaders, which are visible and therefore easier to fight.