The key there is "no clear-cut evidence."

Where do I automatically dismiss them? I note their bias, true, and their history of unreliability. I think as sources they are creaky, and I will not accept unbacked assertions from them. But I also address the arguments.

Except that the Allies have credibility. And tons of evidence. Not only are there thousands of eyewitnesses -- both from survivors of the camps, and from the soldiers that liberated them -- but there are the photographs, the captured Nazi documents, the Nuremburg testimony, etc.

It's a false premise, for the reasons I've cited above.

Agreed. But that's not what I do or did. And you must admit that testimony from bums, murderers, etc. is considered more skeptically than testimony from pillars of society. People with an agenda cannot be dismissed out of hand, but they should be scrutinized more carefully, with a healthy helping of skepticism.

Again, that's not my logic. My logic is more along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Pointing out contradictions in official accounts, and wildly speculating as to the cause, does not cut it. There must be an alternative explanation, with positive evidence to support it.

__________________
Man up.

OK. Enough about Hitler not knowing about the "final solution". It is well documented that he did from top Nazi's own diaries. If you really insist I'll be glad to provide links.

Back to 9-11. My main issue regarding there being a conspiracy is the sheer number of people that would have to have been involved !! Those setting charges in the WTC. Those on the planes. Those acually organizing it, Osama, etc etc etc. We must be talking about hundreds if not thousands of people. Not a single one actually directly involved has spoken up ?!!! I fnd that amazingly hard to fathom. Heck, the US government can't even keep the identties of it's CIA agents a secret

LOL not one of them denied that their people did it? That's pretty funny. There is no more more proof needed that the people "that profited" from wars did not do this. Not only that but they developed a video that says Bush did 9/11. I believe its called Painful Questions. That's where these Einsteins get their ideas. Watch it if you really want to laugh.
Plus there's some video on the other topic as well.

__________________

Just click proof, and the box slides down. The easiness of reading the proofs is unreal. If you don't want to hear both sides of the argument, then you are a closed-minded fool.

[quote="Janglo";p="296411"]OK. Enough about Hitler not knowing about the "final solution". It is well documented that he did from top Nazi's own diaries. If you really insist I'll be glad to provide links.

I'M FROM MISSOURI,SHOW ME THE LINKS

You might put 2+2 together and decide Hitler knew,you might conclude he knew from his speeches and writings against the Jews and others but diaries and smoking guns like everybody calls for with Clinton,i want to see it.

Just whose diary are you talking about?

Herr Goebbles' diaries. In whch he wrote ..

"February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness."

Somehow I think Goebbles was in a position of authority when it comes to this. You might find the rest of the link interesting as well.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

I am curious why you would think that the Fuhrer wouldn't know about the systematic eradication of approximately 6 million people. People all over the world knew, so why wouldn't Hitler ??

__________________
"The key difference between cats and lies is that cats only have 9 lives" - Mark Twain

I certainly believe Hitler knew,but to my knowledge their is no smoking gun.(no direct order)

This all goes back to my discussion about the liberals holding Clinton up to such a high standard. To even question his "shady" dealings is seen as heresy by democrats. Clinton was involved in and around a lot of corrupt dealings,a lot of fishy suicides and murders,but everything is dismissed completely out of hand and i was making a comparison, that no "order" was ever found linking Hitler to the holocaust either.

can all the people that have spoke out against The "Clintons" be so wrong ?

2 + 2 = 4 (i think)

The odds are "No". The Clintons were the ones alleging a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get them. I would ask the Democrats, where was this conspiracy against Jimmy Carter? Why didn't the "vast right-wing" go to work on him? Perhaps because Carter was an honest man and had no dirty dealings. A lot of his policies were misguided, but personally, I do believe he was honest. Clinton on the other hand was known as "Slick Willie" in his home state and had a long history of questionable dealings.

As for the allegations that Republicans are bringing out all these women accusers against Clinton, where were they against Carter? Where are the women accusers against Bush for that matter? Why don't women start coming out of the woodwork accusing all Presidents of this type of behavior? Perhaps the reason there are so many women accusing Clinton is BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY DID WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HE DID.

We know for a fact he lied about Monica, Gennifer and Paula. Why does that make some people believe he was more inclined to tell the truth about the other women, and that those women are the ones lying????????????????

To anyone with common sense, and not influenced by political bias, it's clear that Clinton should never be believed about anything.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

When it comes to accusing people of murder and the like, I think we should never take ANYONE's word for it. Which is all I ask regarding the Clintons: actual, you know, proof. Not wild speculation with no hard evidence to back it up.

Don't take Clinton at his word. But don't take his accusers at their word, either. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint notion.

__________________
Man up.

So? and yes.

Heres a parable for the 20-20 vision people:


I trained my dog to do tricks like roll over, shake hands, and back flip.

One day my dog bit me on the hand, so I spanked myself with a rolled up piece of newspaper.

Another thing to consider is foreign policy. Can you imagine the implications on the world stage if the President and/or his wife were to be arrested for murder? The world would laugh at U.S. government, our reputation would be permanently damaged as a result, and many countries would use that as leverage in the U.N. Others still might even seek to attack the U.S. during the disarray. Good reasons why many intelligence/law enforcement types might want to avoid close scrutiny and leave some things uninvestigated.

Not proof, no, but the Clintons were never arrested and put on trial. I don't think they were ever asked directly, "Did you have anything to do with the murder of Vince Foster?" "Did you have anything to do with the murder of Jerry Luther Parks?" Among many other relevant questions. Not much of an investigation if you ask me.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer