WonderfulLordJesus
New member
I posted the following in another thread, and thought it worth a thread of its own. It would be fascinating to see you liberals make an evidentiary case, an astronomical, statistically defying innocence case for the Clintons, explain away the exponentially huge number against any conceivable random coincidence. If I may suggest, I'd start with a much simpler case, work your way to Hillary. For instance, perhaps the case that Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez caught a bad rap, and what a waste of some equally fine Presidential material, albeit not corrupt, multi-millionaire Communists, against anybody outside the family having a pot to pee in, they neither homo, transgender or Muslim, granted these much maligned men, with like body count stigma, not the best examples of your 2016 Democrat. If such a polemic against statistical science seems lame, to even the liberal mind, perhaps you could attack it from the other end, that relativistic swamp you liberals are so fond of, how, despite dressing in the same style, Hillary Clinton hasn't piled up anything near a Mao body count. Yet.
You who know statistics know how probabilities of randomness run. The more events you have of a low probability happening within some given universe, set, the more astronomically impossible it is all those events happen, probability numbers increasing to gargantuan in a multiplicative fashion. In other words, under normal circumstances of life, one murder or weird accident in your vicinity is tragic, two a real run of bad fortune. Three, and the police start to think of exhuming bodies, etc. Just for example, if the probability were 1 in 50 of one strange death, the probability of three strange deaths would be 50x50x50, or 1 in 125,000. Whatever actual probability for each death, and obviously much less likely than 1 in 50, you can see, if you have 30 suspicious deaths, the number would get a tad high to say it's just random, coincidence? You think?
I recall being struck by one article sometime back where it was pointed out most people know nobody around them who has died in suspicious circumstances, much less even two. Statistically, a Clinton body count north of 30 makes it absolutely impossible it could be random chance. It's like saying you smashed your car into a telephone pole 30 times, due to a steering column failure, which would normally never happen to people. And it's also certain somebody making such claims it was the steering column (it would never get to 30 such accidents) is either in prison for insurance fraud or a mental institution. If people had any sense, the body count alone would disqualify a Clinton from being the dog catcher, that is, having any sort of critical interactions with animals, either, much less humans, that seem to drop like flies around them. Even if we considered the impossible, that all those bodies are the strangest coincidence in recorded history now or that ever shall be, this would still make a Clinton too dangerous for humans to be around, until science finds a way to reverse the curse.
Sort of a trashy website, but it has a good list of the bodies: http://www.govtslaves.info/comprehensive-clinton-body-count-list/
Lastly, there is always the usual explanation available, "Don't believe your lying eyes. Move along. Nothing to see here."
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
You who know statistics know how probabilities of randomness run. The more events you have of a low probability happening within some given universe, set, the more astronomically impossible it is all those events happen, probability numbers increasing to gargantuan in a multiplicative fashion. In other words, under normal circumstances of life, one murder or weird accident in your vicinity is tragic, two a real run of bad fortune. Three, and the police start to think of exhuming bodies, etc. Just for example, if the probability were 1 in 50 of one strange death, the probability of three strange deaths would be 50x50x50, or 1 in 125,000. Whatever actual probability for each death, and obviously much less likely than 1 in 50, you can see, if you have 30 suspicious deaths, the number would get a tad high to say it's just random, coincidence? You think?
I recall being struck by one article sometime back where it was pointed out most people know nobody around them who has died in suspicious circumstances, much less even two. Statistically, a Clinton body count north of 30 makes it absolutely impossible it could be random chance. It's like saying you smashed your car into a telephone pole 30 times, due to a steering column failure, which would normally never happen to people. And it's also certain somebody making such claims it was the steering column (it would never get to 30 such accidents) is either in prison for insurance fraud or a mental institution. If people had any sense, the body count alone would disqualify a Clinton from being the dog catcher, that is, having any sort of critical interactions with animals, either, much less humans, that seem to drop like flies around them. Even if we considered the impossible, that all those bodies are the strangest coincidence in recorded history now or that ever shall be, this would still make a Clinton too dangerous for humans to be around, until science finds a way to reverse the curse.
Sort of a trashy website, but it has a good list of the bodies: http://www.govtslaves.info/comprehensive-clinton-body-count-list/
Lastly, there is always the usual explanation available, "Don't believe your lying eyes. Move along. Nothing to see here."
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Last edited: