Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:3/13/2010
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5825
Comment Ranking:#1292
Highest Content Rank:#1720
Highest Comment Rank:#1301
Content Thumbs: 2399 total,  2663 ,  264
Comment Thumbs: 6836 total,  8990 ,  2154
Content Level Progress: 43% (43/100)
Level 121 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 122 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 51% (51/100)
Level 264 Comments: Pure Win → Level 265 Comments: Pure Win
Content Views:137873
Times Content Favorited:232 times
Total Comments Made:2839
FJ Points:8271

  • Views: 1777
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +6
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/08/15
    Wait for it... Wait for it...
  • Views: 63463
    Thumbs Up 1340 Thumbs Down 53 Total: +1287
    Comments: 172
    Favorites: 130
    Uploaded: 11/09/13
    My nigga My nigga
  • Views: 2613
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +19
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 11/09/13
    Avian Fight Club Avian Fight Club
  • Views: 1753
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +7
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 11/09/13
    Yeaaahhh YEAHHHHH Yeaaahhh YEAHHHHH
  • Views: 1286
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +5
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 11/09/13
    Desc Desc

latest user's comments

#28 - 16) Cool 17) Cool 18) Coor 19) Agre… 5 hours ago on Trumper Comp29 +8
#27 - The No Spin Zone took a small haiatus to travel to the beach, …  [+] (2 new replies) 5 hours ago on Trumper Comp29 +19
User avatar
#32 - manter (5 hours ago) [-]
My only question is how is that employment rate calculated. I know that people who have given up looking for jobs are not counted as unemployed, and I know that part-time jobs are counted as one job each (So if someone lost their job and works 3 part-time jobs to take it's place, 2 jobs were just created). I'm very skeptical of employment rates because of the ways people go about fudging the numbers.
User avatar
#28 - EventHorizon (5 hours ago) [-]
16) Cool

17) Cool

18) Coor

19) Agreed

20) Kek

21) Kek, but extreme oversimplification

22) Fuck the feel good part, not because of the PC bullshit aspect, but because Muslims have made some of the most important mathematical and artistic contributions to humanity in history. Google the Golden Years of Islam.

23) Fucked up

24) The toppest of fucking keks oh my god

25) Cool

26) Means nothin until we learn why

27) How many white supremacists do you think Trump has unknowingly shaken the hand of. HOW ACTUAL MANY?

28) Kek

29) Kek

30) These are not mutually exclusive objectives don't be dense.

31) Cool(aid)

32) Cool
join list: TheNoSpinZone
Mention History
#33 - I figured it out, thanks!  [+] (1 new reply) 08/28/2016 on EventHorizon's profile 0
User avatar
#35 - MuahahaOfLore (08/28/2016) [-]
#31 - No  [+] (4 new replies) 08/28/2016 on EventHorizon's profile 0
User avatar
#34 - MuahahaOfLore (08/28/2016) [-]
Oh, Shit, you did it!! nevermind.
#32 - MuahahaOfLore (08/28/2016) [-]
Press the Trigger List button.
or when you post the list, check the [Send out alerts when you submit this comment/content?] box.
User avatar
#33 - EventHorizon (08/28/2016) [-]
I figured it out, thanks!
User avatar
#35 - MuahahaOfLore (08/28/2016) [-]
#39 - Picture 08/28/2016 on Trumper Comp27 +Pepe +5
#38 - Behold  [+] (1 new reply) 08/28/2016 on Trumper Comp27 +Pepe +3
User avatar
#177 - funz (08/28/2016) [-]
all hail
#31 - Alright everyone *snap snap* sit the **** down, it's time for …  [+] (39 new replies) 08/28/2016 on Trumper Comp27 +Pepe +61
User avatar
#228 - respirator (10 hours ago) [-]
Bill O'Reilly is a right wing nut, not "right down the middle" like he thinks.
#179 - failflyer (08/28/2016) [-]
5) The purpose of many of the policies set in motion by the Dems back in the late 60's, when they used to be the party of the KKK, was to hurt blacks while making it look like they're helping. The way the welfare state is set up, it actively discourages work, pay raises, purchasing certain kinds of property (cars), and literally pays women to have kids without fathers. When you get a pay raise, purchase a car, etc., you lose benefits and come out with a net loss. No shit they aren't rising out of poverty, they literally cannot afford it. Giving benefits to single mothers makes single motherhood economically possible at the very least and encourages it at the worst. The single motherhood rate for blacks is now somewhere between 60% and 70%, as opposed to 20% at the end of segregation. Single mothers are much more likely to be in poverty. Being the child of a single mother is the single greatest predictor of a negative outcome we currently have.

The right's last racist swing was the war on drugs. They stirred up fear about the proliferation of cheap, easy to produce drugs which just happened to be the drugs of choice in black communities. The prohibition effect from the ban sent the prices of drugs through the roof. Combine this with the effect of the welfare state, and the greatest economic opportunity for your average African-American living in the ghettos is to deal drugs, which will either end up with him dead or in prison, as opposed to beginning the long and difficult path of building a legitimate career.

TLDR- The main things hurting the black community right now are the welfare state and the war on drugs. Both need to be either seriously reformed or completely abolished depending on where you stand. Personally, I think all welfare and social programs should be replaced by a negative income tax, and all drugs should be decriminalized, then legalized completely. Also, there should be no excessive taxes on them like marijuana in CO and WA, at least until the cartels are dead. Let competition in the free market destroy drug prices.
User avatar
#113 - respirator (08/28/2016) [-]
Yeah let me add to this by saying "k" about some pictures!
User avatar
#88 - checkemninja (08/28/2016) [-]
No one's ever going to be able to prove hillary killed those people,but we all know she did.
User avatar
#97 - Ruspanic (08/28/2016) [-]
how do you actually know that if there's no evidence
User avatar
#83 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
I can help with the refugee one. The U.S. provides no special payments beyond an approximately $1000 payment during entry along with assistance in things such as housing, jobs, English, etc . Refugee over 16 employment sits at 67 percent which is 7 percent higher than citizens (this does not necessarily imply an advantage as the citizen population is prone to being older along with other factors).

In general the U.S. expects refugees to become self sufficient as quickly as possible. Funny enough they even have to pay the government back for the plane ticket.
User avatar
#51 - Ruspanic (08/28/2016) [-]
I think it's worth pointing out, since we're doing fact-checking here, that whatever Hillary's other faults, 1. there's no evidence that she had any personal culpability in the deaths at Benghazi (#1 and #11), and 2. similarly, there's practically no evidence that Hillary or Bill had people assassinated (#6). A lot of people believe this since it's become a meme, but the meme is based on already dubious claims that have been further distorted like a game of Telephone (i.e. an apparent wound on Vince Foster's neck became "two shots to the back of the head, ruled a suicide").

I understand why you wouldn't want to touch this, since anyone who points these things out gets instant down-thumbs. But I still have to say it, because however justified you may be in hating Hillary Clinton, you are never justified in believing false information.
User avatar
#64 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
She was asked to send help and didn't and when she had to confront the public, lied and blamed it on a video. Why would she lie if she did nothing wrong? She already answered that question, "at this point, what difference does it make?" I don't know, Hillary, why did you lie in the first place? I think that's pretty damn suspicious. I don't think anyone is saying she had a hand in their deaths only that she could have prevented them.

A lot of the deaths occur in extremely suspicious ways, the worst of which being Vince Foster. It's not undeniable proof, but it is highly suspicious. People must get really depressed in writing and testifying against Hillary to commit suicide at the rates that they do.
User avatar
#96 - Ruspanic (08/28/2016) [-]
Thing is, the US State Department has hundreds of embassies/consulates/diplomatic compounds around the world. I doubt the Secretary of State is personally responsible for making staffing decisions at each of these compounds, and Clinton says the requests for additional security never even reached her desk. While obviously she isn't the most reliable source here, it is still very plausible that this is true, considering the chain of command that such requests must go through.
There was an obvious security failure at Benghazi that might have been amended if they'd received the requested security personnel, and Clinton was responsible in a "buck stops here" sort of way, but there seems to be no evidence that she personally did anything wrong that led to the deaths.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that she personally denied Ambassador Stevens's emergency calls for aid as the attack was happening, and knowingly let those people die. That's untrue, obviously.

I've no idea why she would lie about the cause of the attacks, though. She claimed not to know the true cause of the attacks at the time of that speech because the priority was to find and capture the perpetrators, but I'm about 95% sure that's untrue and she did know early on that it was a terrorist attack.

As for the deaths - let's look at Vince Foster, who you said was the most suspicious. Basically all the evidence uncovered by the investigations indicates that Foster was depressed, drove himself to the park in his own car and carrying his own gun, put the gun in his mouth and shot himself in front of a Civil War memorial. Fingerprints, gunpowder and fibers on Foster's clothes, the position of the body, the blood splatter and other evidence all support this story. Also various people confirmed that Foster seemed depressed and that he had been publicly humiliated recently by Hillary Clinton. There are only two pieces of evidence that raise some questions:
1. An apparent wound on the side of Foster's neck, revealed by a blurry photograph (one wound - not an entry and an exit wound, as would happen with a gunshot).
2. The lead prosecutor claimed that the investigation of Kenneth Starr was rushed and failed to thoroughly examine all the evidence, namely relating to the neck wound and another entrance to the park. He resigned in protest.
Now, of course I don't know what the neck wound was. But in the face of all the other evidence, which ultimately led Starr and other investigators to conclude Foster killed himself, these two points seem fairly weak and certainly inconclusive.

As for the other deaths on the "kill list" that's been circulating, the reasoning that "the more there are, the more plausible it is" is a common logical fallacy and it's precisely why the people who write these lists tries to include as many names as possible, regardless of how little evidence there is. It's nothing more than a list of random Clinton acquaintances (and in some cases, people a few degrees of separation from the Clintons) who have died in various ways, which the list alleges are "suspicious". For most of the names there's not even any indication of why the Clintons would want these people killed, much less evidence that they actually did it.

Also, the list has remained the same since it circulated in the 1990s and was about Bill Clinton. This is despite the fact that Hillary has clearly continued rising through the ranks and presumably making enemies. The only new names I ever see added were people who died during this election season, after Trump revived the Vince Foster conspiracy theory.

MuahahaOfLore sketchE
User avatar
#99 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
As far as benghazi goes, why don't you take it up with Gowdy. There are so many reasons that this shouldn't have happened that it's ridiculous that it did at all and he can describe that way better than I can. Hillary personally approved that the facillities were safe and told people to go to Benghazi personally, yet did not respond to requests for help weeks in advance.
IT TAKES TREY GOWDY JUST THREE MINUTES TO SILENCE THE MEDIA Benghazi Hearing  Trey Gowdy  I dont give a damn whose careers are ruined

Hillary definitely knew the video is the cause, Jim Jordan proved that.
Jim Jordan traps Hillary Clinton on blaming video for Benghazi attack when she knew it was planned

Even if you think it was a suicide. She should be tried for murder for leading him to kill himself. After all, you said Hillary publicly humiliated him.
Either way, you're still missing key points of evidence. Documents were removed from his office before the FBI could get to it. His suicide note was ripped into pieces, but the one missing piece was likely his signature, meaning anyone could have written it. The FBI intentionally blurred photos of the injury. www.wnd.com/2016/02/vince-foster-suicide-shocker-2nd-wound-documented/
Leo Wanta knew him and said he was sure he would not commit suicide.
All this in addition to the second wound and the rushed investigation is pretty damn fishy.

It's funny how they all die in plane crashes though, huh. Now I won't claim to have gone through all of them but a lot are really damn suspicious. It's not the sheer number, but the number of suspicious ones which are the problem. Like I said, Hillary must make people really damn depressed to kill themselves at the rate that they do.

Hillary wasn't in the public spotlight. The deaths could have gone unreported or not happened since there may have been no motivation. That is, besides Benghazi.
User avatar
#196 - Ruspanic (08/28/2016) [-]
I don't have to take it up with Gowdy. Gowdy led the House Select Committee on Benghazi and released the final report along with his fellow Republicans on the committee, which found no new evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton herself leading up to the attack.

Of course, someone fucked up. More than a few someones. I'm not denying that. The Committee's report blamed the Department of Defense for failing to get people there in time to rescue Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty (there was no feasible way to save Stevens and Sean Smith in time).
The State Dept was also blamed for failing to recognize and prepare for the danger in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Yes, as I said I'm quite sure Clinton knew the video wasn't the cause of the attack.

I don't see how she can be tried for murder for "leading" Foster to suicide. She didn't do anything illegal, there's no evidence of intent, and even people who believe she drove him to suicide still say it was merely the last straw, not the main cause - he was already depressed. This is corroborated by Foster's family. Other factors include negative things written about Foster by the Wall Street Journal and criticism he received for his role in Travelgate, both of which were specifically mentioned in his torn-up "suicide note" - which was not a suicide note, actually, but a draft of a resignation letter.

as for the FBI: first you say the FBI didn't have all the evidence because documents were removed, and then you say the FBI blurred photos of the injury on purpose. Was the FBI involved in the cover-up or not?

The WND article may seem convincing because it compiles in one place all the apparent discrepancies in the investigation reports and all the evidence that Foster's death was suspicious, but it does not describe the evidence on the other side in remotely comparable detail, so that a reader might be able to judge which story is more plausible. Even considering all things that it says, even if you concede that there were some strange discrepancies about the case, I still don't think there's enough evidence to actually dismiss the verdict as false.
I don't know who "Ambassador Leo Wanta" is. He has no Wikipedia article and I can't find any mention of him outside of conspiracy theorist websites. Rense.com is also clearly a conspiracy theorist website.
WND is a tabloid that also dabbles in conspiracy bullshit - for example, it was one of the publications leading the Obama birther movement.

"It's not the sheer number, but the number of suspicious ones which are the problem."
How do you determine which ones are suspicious?
If you think the case for Foster being murdered has the most evidence behind it out of all the names on the list, and the other "murders" have even less evidence, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
In order for all or most of the deaths on the list to have been covered-up murders, a staggering number of people must have been in on the coverup. Also, for almost all the people on the list, as I said there's no indication of why the Clintons would be motivated to have them killed at all. It's got a bunch of people who are linked to the Clintons in the most tangential ways and people who are extremely unlikely to have any incriminating info about them.

Hillary Clinton became a US Senator immediately after her husband's Presidency, then famously ran for President in 2008, and then served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. "wasn't in the public spotlight?" Are you joking?

I don't understand how you can dismiss out of hand economic analysis by expert economists due to "conflict of interest", reject as hearsay things that Trump's senior management or employees or biographer say about him to give Trump the "benefit of the doubt", but when it comes to Clinton you believe things you read on conspiracy websites or Funnyjunk with almost no evidence.
User avatar
#216 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
Except in the 3 minute press conference I linked he said he was most surprised that people bought it. While there's no undeniable proof that she got them killed, it's very fishy. He obviously thought she did something wrong.

If you bully someone and they commit suicide, you can be tried for murder. People who knew Foster said he was not depressed. It's officially recognized as a suicide note.

The FBI said documents were removed before they could get there. The FBI could have been the ones to remove them and claimed they were gone. The FBI could have also been roped into the cover-up later on. I'm just giving the facts here.

Again, most of these cases on Hillary do not have undeniable evidence. The problem is that a lot of them are really fishy. How many coincidences does it take? I stand by innocent until proven guilty, so I'm not saying she should be arrested, but the likelihood that at least one of these was carried out by the Clintons is very high.

There's a lot of info out there on Leo Wanta. Literally just google "Ambassador Leo Wanta" and you can see a bunch of articles about him.

Well when there's unexplained evidence, I call it suspicious. If the FBI was in on it, then yeah, that's a lot of people. Like I said, it's not likely they killed all of them, but there are a good number of suspicious ones. I don't think it would be worth it to go through another 10 cases, honestly.

When she was secretary of state, she interacted with a core group of people. There was no one in particular who would have released anything on her. I say she was not in the public spotlight because if you look at articles written about Hillary, there are very few compared to those on Obama or those before and after this period.

With the Trump ones, there's simply no evidence besides claims. Hillary's have physical evidence and I think I showed something like 6 key pieces of evidence which are still unexplained to this day, so your claim of "almost no evidence" is pretty weak.
User avatar
#221 - Ruspanic (08/28/2016) [-]
When he said "I'm just surprised by how many people bought it", he's talking about how many people believe there was no scandal. Whether people were right to "buy it" or not, can you explain why Gowdy's own final report didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton's part? I'm not talking about wrongdoing in general, I'm talking about wrongdoing by Sec. Clinton. The only mention of Clinton in Gowdy's 3-minute press statement came in reference to her lying about Benghazi afterward.
Also, notice I said "evidence" and not "undeniable proof".

Clinton allegedly humiliated Foster in a single meeting. She did not repeatedly bully him and she did not tell him to kill himself. I don't think anyone could find a case there.
Who are you referring to that said Foster was not depressed? His own sister said he called her a few days before he died and said he was "battling depression". His wife, Lisa Foster, also says he was depressed and took his failures in Washington very seriously.
All I'm reading about the "suicide note" is that it was intended as a draft of a resignation letter. Now in this article I found (see previous link), it says that "Foster's wife Lisa asked him to make a list of all the things that were bothering him. This list was found six days after his death, torn and dumped in the bottom of a briefcase."

I don't know what to make of this FBI stuff.

As I said, I don't see anything on Leo Wanta in any reputable sources I've ever heard of. Everything that comes up seems to be conspiracy nonsense. But more to the point, the article you linked to says Hillary and Bill are secret CIA operatives, references "Illuminati banksters", and claims Leo Wanta was framed by the "Bush and Clinton crime families" and tortured in a Swiss dungeon. I am going to call bullshit on this, and you should too.

Remember to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof". You don't need absolute proof to justifiably believe something, but if there's not even evidence pointing one way or another, then I don't see what the basis of your belief is.
There really are not many strange coincidences. Clinton has interacted with thousands of people throughout her life, like anyone else of a comparable age and career. Finding 48 people amongst her close and distant acquaintances who died of "unnatural" causes within a 2-decade period should not be that difficult, and it does not make the deaths suspicious.
Your reasoning seems to be something like "the longer the list, the more likely at least one of them is legit", but that's a fallacy and the creator of the list made it long precisely to give that impression.

No shit there were more articles on Obama, he's the President. Many deaths on the list happened when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas; do you mean to say that Hillary was more "in the public spotlight" as First Lady of Arkansas than as Secretary of State? Ridiculous. You're doing absurd mental acrobatics to explain why there were no apparent "murders" for 15 years since Bill's Presidency, when the much simpler and more obvious explanation is that the conspiracy theory was resurrected to harm her Presidential campaign. Occam's Razor, man.

The neck wound is the only piece of evidence that would suggest he was murdered, and it doesn't point specifically to Hillary or Bill or anyone else. The note missing a piece means nothing. It clearly wasn't a finished draft, so why would he sign it? The claim that the FBI intentionally blurred photos to obscure the evidence is just a claim. The missing documents doesn't show anything in particular.
And all that is just Vince Foster, not any of the others.
User avatar
#223 - thegamepixel (08/29/2016) [-]
He also mentions a bunch of other things there besides buying the scandal. He asks a lot more questions. He can't accuse her of wrongdoing without proof. Evidence does not equal guilt, proof does. So he can't accuse her of wrongdoing without proof.

There are clearly some conflicting reports on his depression, but he was bullied by the clintons.

He's written books, he's worked with the Clintons, I don't know why you doubt what he said. I could say that your evidence also just comes from cover-up articles. That's a really poor argument.

You need proof to write an official report on something.
My point is, the longer list of suspicious deaths, the more likely it is. One suspicious death, that could go either way, 2 suspicious deaths, could be a coincidence, 3 suspicious deaths, now we're starting to get up there, upwards of 10 suspicious deaths, how many more does it take to be suspicious of them? I would bet everything I owned on the Clintons killing at least 1 of those people.

That's my point. The target was on the Clinton's in general. I'm not saying only Hillary. The spotlight fell on Bill later on when these deaths were rediscovered. You couldn't find a similar list for Trump, and he's arguably interacted with just as many people. Hillary culd go about sec state business with bribes and she covered her tracks by leaving it all in the server between a few state department/foundation members, meaning she had no reason to off anyone. Yeah, I'm sure all of the damn plane crashes were just coincidences. You're the one doing mental gymnastics to explain away the deaths of all of these people.

Why would that piece in particular be missing? The FBI took photos of photos for this case. I hold the FBI to a bit higher standards than that. Why were the documents missing if there was nothing to hide.

Is it not suspicious that one main part of the note was about how innocent the Clintons were. Why would that be included in the list? The motives for the Clintons would have been that he knew too much. He had investigated a large number of their scandals.
"Later, it was alleged but never proved that the Clintons had combed through these files during the five days before they were handed over.
Other key papers - records for Hillary's legal work on the failed Arkansas bank - appear to have gone missing, too. Although later the subject of a subpoena, the records were not retrieved for more than two years.
Whatever the truth behind all the activity that followed Foster's death, the appearance of concealment was enough to trigger five separate federal inquiries."
User avatar
#226 - Ruspanic (08/29/2016) [-]
As a bonus I'll paste what Snopes has to say about the "tricks" used to make this body count list and others like it appear convincing.
This article also goes through each item on the list one-by-one

- List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.
- Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence.
- Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."
- If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
- Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...
User avatar
#225 - Ruspanic (08/29/2016) [-]
Gowdy's committee didn't even find evidence of wrongdoing on her part, though. He didn't have to formally accuse her, he could have just reported on all the facts and evidence surrounding the Benghazi event. Which he did.
The questions he was asking there are not things that were unknown to him, they were things that he presumed were unknown to the press (he was addressing journalists, after all). The point of the speech was to accuse the press of not taking this matter seriously enough to ask real questions.

Jim McDougal also corroborates that Foster was depressed and committed suicide. Don't know why you think there were "conflicting reports" about this, since you haven't actually given any counterevidence.
The article you posted says that Clinton "browbeat" Foster about Whitewater, but doesn't say when. Was it constantly before his death, or was it just "constantly" at that particular meeting, which happened a week before his death?

"He's written books, he's worked with the Clintons..."
Who are you talking about here?

Your explanation for the lack of deaths between 2000 and 2015 is pure speculation.

Why was that piece of the note missing? I don't know, maybe it fell out after he tore up the paper. How does anyone know the missing piece "may have" contained a signature, if no one ever found it? Why would he sign a clearly incomplete letter? Why did he keep the torn-up pieces of paper in his briefcase rather than throwing them away?
I don't know. They're unanswered questions, but that doesn't make it suspicious in itself.

The documents may have been removed because Clinton knew the FBI was investigating and didn't want them to find stuff about her. It doesn't logically imply she had him killed.

"the longer list of suspicious deaths, the more likely it is."
See, this is exactly the fallacy I'm talking about. I don't know how many times I have to say this:
This is not a valid logical argument.
The deaths on the list are not suspicious just because the list says they are. They're simply deaths. People die.
Almost all of the plane crashes on the list were small private planes, which crash almost as often as cars, and have a much higher fatality rate than cars when they do crash. Private plane crashes are not actually that uncommon.

The reason there isn't an equivalent list about Trump is because no conspiracy theorist has yet seen fit to concoct one. But it shouldn't be that hard. For example:
A "close friend" of Trump's died in an apparent suicide this February. He was a self-made millionaire and motivational speaker with a hot wife and lots of kids, and was apparently deeply religious. What reason would he have to kill himself, then?
The results of the autopsy were not publicized - what are they trying to hide?
The death just happened to come right after Trump was accused of hiding something incriminating in his unreleased tax returns. Maybe Huhem was murdered because he was about to reveal something about Trump's finances!

Here's a helicopter crash that killed 3 high-level executives working for Trump
1989 is also the year an unflattering documentary about Trump was released, which Trump tried to stop. Maybe these 3 people were sources?

Trump's private pilot died in a car accident a month before Trump announced his Presidential run:

Oh look, I've found 5 people with ties to Donald Trump who died "suspiciously", and it only took me like 15 minutes. If I found 5 more, would you "bet everything you own" that Trump killed at least one of these people?
#217 - roped (08/28/2016) [-]
#218 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
User avatar
#62 - sketchE (08/28/2016) [-]

if you cant have 5 people to protect the person who represents you even after requests then you done fucked up
User avatar
#59 - MuahahaOfLore (08/28/2016) [-]
hillary said herself she was on the call for bengazi
even though the real issue was that she lied
tough decisions need to be made by officials sometimes

The murders, the question becomes; how many until its more than a coincidence?
User avatar
#44 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
3) One of his campaign people said he did not do it for any kind of benefit and the fact that he is calling it to be investigated shows that he is not scared that he did anything wrong.

5) "Democratic policymaking in the past 60 years is a gradual transition from well-meaning support of Civil Rights" Let me stop you right there. 60 years ago, the democrats were trying to stop anti-segregation legislature, so I don't think it started as "well-meaning support of Civil Rights." The treat symptoms instead of the problem because if they treated the problem there would be no reason to elect them. They use welfare to treat the poor black communities because it enables a class of people who become dependent on Democrats, essentially allowing Democrats to buy votes. By doing this they have kept the black man poor since the 30s when, economically, and in marriage rates, blacks were actually better off than whites. It is the "democratic plantation" and they are providing blacks with the bare essentials for their vote to give them power, just as slavery did so for labor for economic power.

6) Trump only hired Corey Lewandowski in the first place to ensure he got enough delegates at the RNC convention, which he did. It's better that Trump changes people to have changes in ideas at the table and this is something that should be encouraged.

7) A restaurant can legally disallow service to anyone they choose besides race. If you are using the left's narrative against them, fine, but I support their right to do so, even though it's against me. Besides, if they don't want me there, I don't want to be there just so they can spit in my food. Just like with the gay bakers, just go to another one. Also, scientifically, it's more likely that people are born more susceptible to being gay and its part nature part nurture.

8) Not a fan. I'm surprised he said this considering how much of a Democrat he is and the Democrats are on the side of globalism.

12) I can't find an exact source, but this is entirely realistic. A single veteran with a 70% disability rating in America only gets $1300. militarybenefits.info/va-disability-rates/ meanwhile in the netherlands, in Britain, Refugees get 2000 Euros per month which are only 10 cents off in exchange rate. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11941580/Each-Syrian-refugee-to-cost-Britain-24000-a-year.html

14) He was expressing the contrast to Hillary saying that black people are well-off and Trump's picture of black America is wrong. Furthermore, the misspelling was likely an auto-correct as it is an uncommon spelling of that name and even if not, again, it's an uncommon spelling. When I went to look this up, I spelled it wrong.

16) Trump has only called her bigoted once and she is if she doesn't see the problem in black communities while simultaneously giving them welfare to stay in the hole.
User avatar
#85 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
Unlike Europe the U.S. does not provide special financial assistance to refugees beyond an approx $1000 upon arrival. The refugees also owe the money back for the plane ticket to the US.
User avatar
#87 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
I'm just saying with how poorly vets are treated in the US and well refugees are treated in Europe, that image isn't much of a stretch.
User avatar
#108 - scorcho (08/28/2016) [-]
european police dogs are treated better than your vets.
User avatar
#89 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
While I completely agree that the US does not treat veterans nearly well enough the image is obviously implying that the US pays refugees more than veterans which is straight false.
User avatar
#90 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
Pretty sure it being in the US isn't implied anywhere. The dollar amount uses a US dollar sign, but that sign is used in Mexico, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Pacific Island nations, and English-speaking Canada, so it may not be USD. It could also be converted into USD. Refugees are a bigger issue in Europe and Canada, so I'd say if anything, it's referencing Canada, but it could be a slew of other nations.
User avatar
#91 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
Dude that's a load of shit and you know it... the man in the picture is a us navy veteran (the caps are very distinctive). Also the rest of the comp is about the U.S. so it's unlikely this one picture is not.
User avatar
#92 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
A lot of these comps involve world events, too. I don't know about the cap, could you provide some reference? Also, after looking into it (since the british refugee payment is pretty much exactly in line with that image) a British vet can actually receive way less than the image shown depending on his disabilities, so even if the country is wrong, the numbers are solid and should be something that people should be mad about. www.gov.uk/government/news/war-pension-scheme-payments-increases-from-april-2015
User avatar
#93 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
DD-426 is written on the cap. DD is the is the US navy code for destroyer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lansdale_ (DD-426)
User avatar
#95 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
Cool, I didn't know that. For technicality's sake, yes the image is incorrect, but this does happen in other first-world countries, so the message it holds is important. If you want to get more technical, the US gives single refugees 1800 in a lump payment, so it's possible the creator mistook that for a monthly payment. We can also look at it mathematically, where a Muslim refugee likely does not speak English and will end up on welfare as he cannot find a job. 3.7 trillion dollars went to welfare in 2015. 35% of Americans are on welfare. This means the average monthly welfare payment is $2752. This isn't even counting the fact that employed people on welfare get less than the unemployed, meaning that a Muslim refugee likely makes over 3k in welfare per month since only 4.9 percent of Americans are unemployed. So in the US, if you do it mathematically, a Muslim refugee will likely make double what that image showed.
User avatar
#199 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
1800 is the allotment for the refugee to the service that assists them finding housing. approx 1000 is given to the refugee while the rest goes to the service. 3.7 is the total spent by the feds over 5 years from 2009 through 2013. The US (all levels of government) spends a total 927 billion (2011) on welfare. Assuming all welfare is distributed evenly the average recipient gets $705 in total assistance of which half is medical coverage so they receive $350. But not all assistance is given evenly nor are the majority of U.S. refugees Muslim. Also veterans receiving VA benefits are likely applicable for many welfare programs as well.

Of course most veterans do no require any welfare assistance at all as they on average are more financially successful than no the non-veteran population. Veterans also receive additional benefits such as discounts at many private businesses and low rate mortgages without down payment.
User avatar
#214 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
You're using old data. In 2015, the US spent 3.7 trillion on welfare and 35% of people were on some kind of welfare.
User avatar
#220 - inyourmind (08/28/2016) [-]
where are you getting that number? It's not real. In fact its easy to find that number as a 5 year expense quote. That would be over 90% of the federal budget (which is the vast majority of spending).... the highest number I can find claims 1 trillion for 2015.
#222 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
I'm sorry, I made a mistake, you're right. At any rate, you would still make a large amount more by being on welfare. For example, a person making 30k would make 60k after welfare benefits in Pennsylvania. Making nothing nets you 45k.
User avatar
#49 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
for #12, I meant Britain, I was going to include a fact about the Netherlands, but decided to include the one about Britain instead as it was a more direct comparison. i also meant, 10 cents off in exchange rate to USD if it wasn't clear.
#36 - adrenalinbbq (08/28/2016) [-]
To defend Obama's talk on assault weapons here, which is taken a bit out of context, honestly...
He's saying they're fighting a regime, essentially a civil war against a fascist dictator who just so happens to have a Russian dry-dock base on his shores. America doesn't have that problem...Hence why he would bring up the argument why they need assault weapons and we do not.
User avatar
#45 - thegamepixel (08/28/2016) [-]
The problem is that if we do ever end up with that problem in America, there won't be another America to give the people guns. We have to stay armed.
User avatar
#34 - MuahahaOfLore (08/28/2016) [-]
10) Kekius Maximus
#39 - EventHorizon (08/28/2016) [-]
#175 - That article has been the brunt of jokes among sociologists an…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/27/2016 on Trumper Comp26 0
User avatar
#176 - thegamepixel (08/27/2016) [-]
First of all, which article? Secondly, the video I linked uses data from Pew which is the widely known as being the pinnacle of research organizations.
#173 - "a majority"... 1.7 billion Muslims, and almost a bi…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/27/2016 on Trumper Comp26 0
User avatar
#175 - EventHorizon (08/27/2016) [-]
That article has been the brunt of jokes among sociologists and psychologists ever since it came out. It's full of flat out incorrect and artificially inflated data, biased sample populations, and it's guilty of virtually every single type of logical fallacy we have terms for. This exact article is used as an example of them in introductory classes at least Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech. You're smarter than to think it's proof of anything.
User avatar
#176 - thegamepixel (08/27/2016) [-]
First of all, which article? Secondly, the video I linked uses data from Pew which is the widely known as being the pinnacle of research organizations.
#171 - We're not debating whether or not to punish responsible partie…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/27/2016 on Trumper Comp26 0
User avatar
#172 - thegamepixel (08/27/2016) [-]
Well it depends on what beliefs they hold. A majority of Muslims are radical, so it's not really a huge stretch, honestly.
User avatar
#173 - EventHorizon (08/27/2016) [-]
"a majority"... 1.7 billion Muslims, and almost a billion are radical? 1/9th of the earth's population are radical? Are you out of your mind?
User avatar
#175 - EventHorizon (08/27/2016) [-]
That article has been the brunt of jokes among sociologists and psychologists ever since it came out. It's full of flat out incorrect and artificially inflated data, biased sample populations, and it's guilty of virtually every single type of logical fallacy we have terms for. This exact article is used as an example of them in introductory classes at least Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech. You're smarter than to think it's proof of anything.
User avatar
#176 - thegamepixel (08/27/2016) [-]
First of all, which article? Secondly, the video I linked uses data from Pew which is the widely known as being the pinnacle of research organizations.

channels owned

Subscribe for-science
Subscribe xboxonesucks