re: I don’t care how many people you know. Nobody has 56 dead friends.

List is far from complete! List has two boys listed under one number. List does not contain some recent feaths. That should be. And it does not include a number of reporters/investigators looking into various Clinton organizations! Does not include JFK Jr! This list is missing at least 25 people!

quote:

---

Everybody over 75 has 56 dead friends.

---

Its not the age of the Clintons that matter, its the dead's ages that are mindblowing

No one over 75 knows 50 dead people under the age 50ish

Refuting the premise of an argument invalidates all the BS that is to follow. I guess you missed that lecture. And no, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hom fallacy would be trying to refute your argument through personal insult. I made a point FIRST, pointing out that it is all based off of a 1990s conspiracy theory chain mail that is still being sent around to everyone's crazy uncle to add names to, THEN I insulted you. There's a distinct difference. But hey you will be rich soon so what does it matter? There's a sweet chain letter out there with your name on it from a Nigerian Prince. Says you're owed millions.

quote:

---

Nobody has 56 dead friends

---

Ever been to the Middle East?

The burden of proof is not on me. I'm not the one making the claim. There is, so far, a claim and a 1990s chain mail as evidence for said claim.

I’m sure some of these have some basis in fact, but Barry Seal is on the list. Barry Seal was killed by two Columbian dudes, ordered by Pablo Escobar. We know this for a fact. The guys were caught, tried and convicted and are currently serving sentences in prison. The Clinton’s has nothing to do with that. (I’m sure they did take kickbacks from Seal in Mena, but that’s irrelevant to his death.). There are some others on the list that are pretty stretchy too.

I hate the Clintons and I’m sure they had people killed to cover their tracks, but this list doesn’t help the case.

Then why are you so invested in responding to the post? Is your position that these people never existed, that they didn’t commit suicide or that they weren’t in Clinton circles? Being generous you could probably dismiss 30%, maybe even 50%, but that still leaves a statistical anomaly.

Your claim about who has the burden of proof doesn’t change the fact that your response was an appeal to ridicule, btw. If you want to actually refute claims of fact then it wouldn’t be that difficult. If you’re just going to say “I reject that” over and over then I’m back to my first question. It’s curious that you’d respond at all.

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.