What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

VINCE FOSTER (1 Viewer)

Do you think Vince Foster committed suicide, or was murdered?

  • Murdered

    Votes: 5 83.3%

  • Suicide

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Total voters
    6
Murdered by Hilary, on Bill's orders, with monetary support from the Carter administration, propaganda cover thrown up by Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda running interference with a compelling Jazzercise video workout.

 
Suicide. Christopher Ruddy is a misrepresenting clown.

I was initally a believer, but reviewing the facts reveals a suicide, not a conspiracy.

 
snitwitch said:
Murdered by Hilary, on Bill's orders, with monetary support from the Carter administration, propaganda cover thrown up by Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda running interference with a compelling Jazzercise video workout.
Click to expand...
I thought everyone already knew this? I guess some commie pinkos are still in denial. :tinfoilhat:
 
The clean sweep of Foster's office immediately after his death by the Clinton flunkies sealed it for me.

edit: RIP Vince.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Were there irregularities, yes. Unexplained departures from protocol, yes. Conpiracy to murder, no.

Did the Clinton crew asume they had some sort of Presidential priveledge to interfer with (they probably termed it keeping apprised of or abreast with) the invesitgation, sure. Power breeds hubris. That said, hubris in an effort to spin the story may amount to interference with an investigation, but it does not equal murder. Were this actually murder the conspiracy would involve many. Some of those many would only be bound to the Clintons during their term in office. Once Bush was in office a simple inquiry would have at least yielded some evidence of the conspiracy. Given the anomosity between the Clinton and Bush camps I assume this was done. That nothing ever came of this, and that the Clintons retain political aspirations, tells me the Bush camp found out nothing, and the reason for this is that nothing was there. Nothing.

The funny thing, to me, was that had the rabid right not over-reached on this they might have been able to pursue the "interference with the investigation for political gain" angle successfully. Once they over reached the entire discussion looked like partisan kooks going off the deep end. Their nuttiness indicts any argument they may have raised surrounding the matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rush Limbaugh solved this case back when it happened -- he reported that Vince died in a safe house owned by Hillary Clinton and was moved to the park where his body was "found."

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Given the anomosity between the Clinton and Bush camps
Click to expand...
animosity?let's seeBush sr and Barbara think of billy jeff like another sonW has been complimentary of billy jeffbilly jeff and hillary have been supportive of the Iraq policy to the greatest extent possible to where hillary canstill retain some level of street-cred with the left.I remeber right after W took office he wanted to focus on the future and not lauuch a bunch of investigations into the previous administration -- think of the type of precedent that would set.
 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Were there irregularities, yes. Unexplained departures from protocol, yes. Conpiracy to murder, no.Did the Clinton crew asume they had some sort of Presidential priveledge to interfer with (they probably termed it keeping apprised of or abreast with) the invesitgation, sure. Power breeds hubris. That said, hubris in an effort to spin the story may amount to interference with an investigation, but it does not equal murder. Were this actually murder the conspiracy would involve many. Some of those many would only be bound to the Clintons during their term in office. Once Bush was in office a simple inquiry would have at least yielded some evidence of the conspiracy. Given the anomosity between the Clinton and Bush camps I assume this was done. That nothing ever came of this, and that the Clintons retain political aspirations, tells me the Bush camp found out nothing, and the reason for this is that nothing was there. Nothing.The funny thing, to me, was that had the rabid right not over-reached on this they might have been able to pursue the "interference with the investigation for political gain" angle successfully. Once they over reached the entire discussion looked like partisan kooks going off the deep end. Their nuttiness indicts any argument they may have raised surrounding the matter.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the GOP and the Clintons I was reading something interesting. One of GWBs mystery firings of US Attorney generals was the guy in Arkansas. He wasn't even given the opportunity to resign. He was replaced by a guy who has been on Roves digging up the dirt team for some time. Sounds like a a little prepositioning of assets to me in advance of a Hillary run.You want a conspiracy? Take a look at what US Attorneys are being fired, who they were after and who they are replaced by. Interesting that a little known provision in the Patriot Act allows the President to fire US Attorneys and replace them with no Senate oversight or approval. I am sure that was absolutely vital to fight terrorism.
 
Sam Quentin said:
NCCommish said:
You want a conspiracy? Take a look at what US Attorneys are being fired, who they were after and who they are replaced by.
Click to expand...
:unsure: So why did President Clinton, as one his first Presidential acts, have Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys?
Click to expand...
Because they were GOPers. This is a political post and most presidents start with a fresh slate. What makes this different is that Bush is firing people he selected and is getting to replace them with no Senate review due to the Patriot Act. Some of whom are working big corruption cases against GOPers and their friends. It is a bit of a different animal then what Clinton did.
 
NCCommish said:
Sam Quentin said:
NCCommish said:
You want a conspiracy? Take a look at what US Attorneys are being fired, who they were after and who they are replaced by.
Click to expand...
:lmao: So why did President Clinton, as one his first Presidential acts, have Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys?
Click to expand...
Because they were GOPers. This is a political post and most presidents start with a fresh slate. What makes this different is that Bush is firing people he selected and is getting to replace them with no Senate review due to the Patriot Act. Some of whom are working big corruption cases against GOPers and their friends. It is a bit of a different animal then what Clinton did.
Click to expand...
XUS Attorney is not a political post, and this act was unprecedented.

 
NCCommish said:
Sam Quentin said:
NCCommish said:
You want a conspiracy? Take a look at what US Attorneys are being fired, who they were after and who they are replaced by.
Click to expand...
:lmao: So why did President Clinton, as one his first Presidential acts, have Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys?
Click to expand...
Because they were GOPers. This is a political post and most presidents start with a fresh slate. What makes this different is that Bush is firing people he selected and is getting to replace them with no Senate review due to the Patriot Act. Some of whom are working big corruption cases against GOPers and their friends. It is a bit of a different animal then what Clinton did.
Click to expand...
Maybe they thought Ronnie Earle would fire himself? :shrug:
 
Sam Quentin said:
NCCommish said:
Sam Quentin said:
NCCommish said:
You want a conspiracy? Take a look at what US Attorneys are being fired, who they were after and who they are replaced by.
Click to expand...
:shrug: So why did President Clinton, as one his first Presidential acts, have Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys?
Click to expand...
Because they were GOPers. This is a political post and most presidents start with a fresh slate. What makes this different is that Bush is firing people he selected and is getting to replace them with no Senate review due to the Patriot Act. Some of whom are working big corruption cases against GOPers and their friends. It is a bit of a different animal then what Clinton did.
Click to expand...
XUS Attorney is not a political post, and this act was unprecedented.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. And the scope may be larger but all Presidents do this to some degree or another. And it was not all it was 93 of 94 a nitpick to be sure. And if these are Bush appointees how did they get there? Clinton assigned his own guy to Arkansas. Someone must have gone right?
 
KCC said:
Snopes has a page on the "Clinton body count". Foster is #2 on the list. Sorry to derail the funfilled murder/conspiracy bandwagon.
Click to expand...
From that page:
there have been close to fifty suspicious deaths of colleagues, advisors and citizens who were about to testify against the Clintons
Click to expand...
Isn't that just a little suspicious?
And if we buy into the conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn't own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), and then seriously expected the nation would believe it was suicide?
Click to expand...
Here's where I don't get where Snopes is coming from. The guy didn't own the gun and his fingerprints weren't on the "suicide" weapon. That's pretty damning to me.And they place the Holy Grail that this thing is false in the arms of Ken Starr? When did Ken Starr become such a genius that if HE can't find it, well then, it must not be there. (edit: what ken starr was up to)

Snopes says it's false. I can find several that dispute that.

In the end, people are going to believe what they want to believe. I choose the facts, and the facts say that the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster were suspicious at the very least.

I'm still flabbergasted that people find it hard to believe that the most powerful people in the world would be able/willing to dispose of those that would bring them down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another great link

This link breaks it down into easy to read snippets of each portion of the facts. I know a lot of people prefer the cliff notes version.

I'm starting to understand the frustration that guys like Mr. Ham feel, watching what they see as blind acceptance of something horrific being performed by their government, just because the government says there's nothing to worry about.

There's facts and then there's the official story. The official story doesn't match the facts.

They killed this guy and it seems like nobody cares. Everyone gets all up in arms because the government might be listening in on their phone calls, but they don't care that this guy was just freaking killed?

This was a guy just like us. Maybe that day he was worried what size TV to get, or what beer he was going to drink that night, or what cheerleader was hotter. Maybe he was wondering where his flask from Glennfiddich was. Then POOF, just freaking silenced. He had a lot of living left to do, a lot of good times that he won't be able to pursue. I feel like I owe it to the guy to at least listen to the facts.

 
Statorama said:
KCC said:
Snopes has a page on the "Clinton body count". Foster is #2 on the list. Sorry to derail the funfilled murder/conspiracy bandwagon.
Click to expand...
From that page:
there have been close to fifty suspicious deaths of colleagues, advisors and citizens who were about to testify against the Clintons
Click to expand...
Isn't that just a little suspicious?
And if we buy into the conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn't own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), and then seriously expected the nation would believe it was suicide?
Click to expand...
Here's where I don't get where Snopes is coming from. The guy didn't own the gun and his fingerprints weren't on the "suicide" weapon. That's pretty damning to me.And they place the Holy Grail that this thing is false in the arms of Ken Starr? When did Ken Starr become such a genius that if HE can't find it, well then, it must not be there. (edit: what ken starr was up to)

Snopes says it's false. I can find several that dispute that.

In the end, people are going to believe what they want to believe. I choose the facts, and the facts say that the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster were suspicious at the very least.

I'm still flabbergasted that people find it hard to believe that the most powerful people in the world would be able/willing to dispose of those that would bring them down.
Click to expand...
I think your sarcasm meter is down. They present the "facts" (some of which you've listed above) from various websites which are completely untrue. Their argument is that if all those really were true, why would Ken Starr (of all people) conclude that Foster's death was a suicide. As noted on snopes, it isn't just Starr who concluded that foster killed himself - two other independent investigations prior to his looked at the evidence and came to exactly the same conclusion.
 
Statorama said:
Another great link

This link breaks it down into easy to read snippets of each portion of the facts. I know a lot of people prefer the cliff notes version.

I'm starting to understand the frustration that guys like Mr. Ham feel, watching what they see as blind acceptance of something horrific being performed by their government, just because the government says there's nothing to worry about.

There's facts and then there's the official story. The official story doesn't match the facts.

They killed this guy and it seems like nobody cares. Everyone gets all up in arms because the government might be listening in on their phone calls, but they don't care that this guy was just freaking killed?

This was a guy just like us. Maybe that day he was worried what size TV to get, or what beer he was going to drink that night, or what cheerleader was hotter. Maybe he was wondering where his flask from Glennfiddich was. Then POOF, just freaking silenced. He had a lot of living left to do, a lot of good times that he won't be able to pursue. I feel like I owe it to the guy to at least listen to the facts.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: This story is pretty amazing....

BUT, snopes says it's false :no:

 
Reaper said:
Statorama said:
Another great link

This link breaks it down into easy to read snippets of each portion of the facts. I know a lot of people prefer the cliff notes version.

I'm starting to understand the frustration that guys like Mr. Ham feel, watching what they see as blind acceptance of something horrific being performed by their government, just because the government says there's nothing to worry about.

There's facts and then there's the official story. The official story doesn't match the facts.

They killed this guy and it seems like nobody cares. Everyone gets all up in arms because the government might be listening in on their phone calls, but they don't care that this guy was just freaking killed?

This was a guy just like us. Maybe that day he was worried what size TV to get, or what beer he was going to drink that night, or what cheerleader was hotter. Maybe he was wondering where his flask from Glennfiddich was. Then POOF, just freaking silenced. He had a lot of living left to do, a lot of good times that he won't be able to pursue. I feel like I owe it to the guy to at least listen to the facts.
Click to expand...
:headbang: This story is pretty amazing....

BUT, snopes says it's false :lmao:
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Starbucks Charging More For Extra Stuff - Yes or No?
2
Replies
96
Views
1K
massraider
massraider
Ministry of Pain
  • Poll Poll
The Great American Chip-Off
2
Replies
72
Views
795
shuke
shuke
kupcho1
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Quote off
Replies
4
Views
306
Brunell4MVP
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top