Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DJ MacWoW
No! I think we should be extremely tough and play jsut as dirty as they do, That is why I like AB. That being said there is No justification in speculating that a person has been murdered. Particularly when there is a great deal of proof that he suffered from a serious heart condition.

It is disrespectful to his family and can only add to their grief.

112 posted on 03/04/2012 10:50:05 AM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: Jim from C-Town
Pure, unadulterated bunk.

See Post 80. What WAS his heart condition? Hm? It was serious but doctors couldn't pinpoint the problem?

As I said....BUNK.

117 posted on 03/04/2012 10:55:05 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Jim from C-Town

I was saddened to read about Douglas.


122 posted on 03/04/2012 10:59:16 AM PST by null and void (Day 1138 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Jim from C-Town; null and void

What proof? On every thread I’ve seen on this subject I’ve asked anybody to provide any report pre-dating March 1, 2012 where it was said that Breitbart had a heart problem, and so far nobody has come up with anything. What they’ve come up with is people since Breitbart died claiming that he had a heart problem, had a heart attack a year ago, was hospitalized for a heart attack, had a heart attack a month ago, etc. But either those reports are wrong, or else something was screwy when Reuters reported that Breitbart’s father-in-law said he DIDN’T know of any heart condition and the coroner’s office said he hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year.

If it was an assassination I can fully understand why the family wants to say it was natural causes and might even ask friends to make up stories to try to create a pre-existing heart condition. There’s a wife and 4 little kids to protect, and if they did this to Andrew who might they do it to next, if the family did anything to let the public know it was an assassination?

Ultimately we’re never gonna know and we may as well drop the issue, for the sake of the family.

But I do think we need to ask what Null and Void is asking - given what the CIA lawyers are claiming about targeted assassinations and the recent law passed by a majority of the Congress-critters allowing the government to detain “terrorists” based on them being simply “belligerent” (without any definition for what constitutes belligerence), what would protect any one of us - Breitbart included - from being called a terrorist by Obama, based on what he calls “belligerence”, and assassinated by a heart-attack-inducing frozen dart that can’t be detected by an autopsy?

That’s the question of this thread, and nobody seems ot be really addressing it.

If targeted assassinations of US citizens (deemed by the POTUS to be “terrorists”) are legal, and if it is legal for the executive branch to make up their own definition of “belligerence” and call somebody a terrorist based on that, then any one of us can be called a terrorist by this illegal POTUS in office right now and be legally assassinated without anybody ever knowing or having recourse.


182 posted on 03/04/2012 2:51:05 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson