McCroskey

Clever. Always enjoy your intelligent rebuttals to a discussion.

Espionage clearly not your forte.

Not sure how old you are, but the older I’ve gotten the more I’ve learned to at least keep an open mind when certain facts or evidence are presented in interesting or unusual ways. I also have no problem in admitting when I’m wrong. I only find the Kennedy angle relevant in that the country has a verifiable history of protecting certain political families that many might call conspiracy theories...especially in those days. Kennedy, FDR, etc... “Some” of this stuff isn’t as far fetched as people might think. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So it’s laid out in the court filings and the MSM is just ignoring that fact? I’m skeptical. I’ll go peruse the news sites again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that’s true it should be pretty quick to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously what’s feeding most of this is the suspicion that the 24/7 video feed was removed and/or disabled in an unusual fashion and he wasn’t supposed to have access to anything he could have harmed himself with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven’t seen this on CNN or MSNBC...where is this story and case laid out? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think it was a murder? By probability, who are your most likely culprits? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sure seems unusual. I’m not by nature a conspiracy guy but when you look at the Clinton history, I find a lot of it interesting and problematic from certain perspectives. Just curious, do you think Jack Kennedy and his personal life were protected? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll freely admit that I could certainly be wrong. Again, I simply pointed out that the circumstantial evidence (since others may have difficulty interpreting what that means) with the Clinton conspiracies is at least interesting, if nothing else. A SHIT TON of people associated with them have died under mysterious circumstances. Argue what you want but that fact alone is unusual.

Perhaps you misunderstand it yourself. Evidence can be both physical and circumstantial. Have you heard of the latter?

What is it about the Clinton Body Count that isn't pretty interesting evidence, if nothing else? Democrats and the MSM do have an interesting history of protecting their own royalty, this isn't really a disputable thing. At least with Trump, he's arguably had his closets examined more closely than any human in history and yet the ONLY thing his opponents are trying to get him with is obstruction of justice on an investigation in which the lead investigator said nothing was impeded, for a crime that didn't exist.

From what I remember I thought it was a bunch of nonsense.

From a probability perspective, I think it's most likely a murder.

Dude, you know they were down.

Dude was most likely murdered. The odds that it is in any way tied to Trump are in my opinion hysterically low. For starters, as HARD as the MSM and Anti-Trumpers have been throwing resources and looking for ANYTHING to take the guy down, this story of Epstein and his prior relationship with Trump is far too old and clearly it's been hashed through to the fullest extent possible, and the ONLY reason you haven't heard anything beyond that is that as far as Trump was involved, nothing was there except a single quote about Epstein liking women younger that Trump preferred. Rest assured, Epstein would have long ago been quickly sacrificed and given up to authorities had there been some legitimate link that Trump was involved in. This wasn't Trump's doing, and LOL if you think it is. IMO, the two most likely scenarios are that this was a hit aimed at protecting the Clinton legacy and name (by design the odds of them having any direct knowledge or traceable ties to this are virtually zero at this point), or it was a hit from MI-6 to protect Queen Elizabeth's youngest son and their family. If I were a betting man, I'd go with the Clinton's as being the most likely culprits, purely given the fact that the #ClintonBodyCount is absolutely a real, tangible thing.

Or a same era Jeep CJ. One of our CJ-5's growing up had so much play in the wheel if you let go at 30mph you'd probably flip over.

Will their streaming include all Marvel movies? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the London thread. Find a bank ATM and the fees are minimal. I usually take out $200-$300gpb at a time and the fees are less than $10. Don’t use Uber. London Taxi drivers are awesome but even on a budget, nothing beats an Oyster card with unlimited zone 1 and 2 access for a few days. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Sir, are we being too literal?" "No, you fool, we're following orders. We were told to comb the desert so we're combing it."

Anyone have a recommended AirBNB that can accommodate 7 people for a few nights? Preferably in Mayfair.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say (lots of valid points there) but make no mistake, human beings (which sadly and obviously includes the cunt mass murderers) FEED from attention. I further suspect most people can differentiate the discussion we're having from events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. There are reasons suicides aren't reported to the extent they are...studies have proven excessive coverage of suicides can actually increase suicides. There are MANY documented cases of mass murder where the murderers fed from the attention they knew they'd receive. This isn't just conjecture.

I didn't say don't report on a shooting. Cover it all you want, just don't personalize the shooter and "celebritize" them to the extent that is almost always done. It doesn't matter that normal people like you ultimately won't remember, it's that the psychologically damaged individuals who WOULD commit such an atrocious attack can be motivated more than they are already in some cases in knowing they will gain some level of infamy as a result. Many cases of this occurring and/or suspected of occurring in the last several decades are well documented.

You can do every bit of that without pictures and a name.

Of course I can comprehend how banning the sales of guns COULD reduce the problem. The problem is that any educated person should also be able to comprehend how banning the sales of certain guns MIGHT NOT have the intended effect and/or cause other unwanted outcomes..and those MUST be considered. This is not an easy thing to resolve, is all I'm saying.

I'm not a proponent of not doing anything. AT ALL. I'm just hoping the powers at be can start taking SMART measures to reduce these events. Emotional measures can backfire and possibly even make things worse.