Comments on: Ron Brown’s Murder

By: Jovan

Jovan — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:47:49 +0000

I love that men like you are too weak and emasculated to use their names when trying to insult me. It makes me feel good to know you have to sneak onto this blog under a phony name with your tiny tail tucked between your legs because you’re afraid to be a real man. – Admin

By: Christopher Taylor

Christopher Taylor — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:32:41 +0000

There are a lot of things around the Clinton presidency that have an unpleasent odor, and Ron Brown’s death did have some oddities around it. I am pretty sure with Vince Foster what happened is he saw his career doomed with Whitewater and he shot himself in the White House, then was moved because it looked bad for someone to do it there. That’s as far as that one goes.

By: gcotharn

gcotharn — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:15:41 +0000

Actually, if the major media stuck only to the verifiable facts about Bill Clinton, even leftists would revile him. Failure to stick to facts about Bill runs both ways.

There was no autopsy done on Ron Brown.

That doesn’t prove anything. However, can we at least agree it seems a bit … unusual? 60 Minutes has gone crazy over lesser occurrances.

By: Rebekah K

Rebekah K — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:35:23 +0000

I love the smell of conspiracy theories in the morning (it’s too bad I stumbled across this in the evening, when the allergies have kicked in)!

By: Christopher Taylor

Christopher Taylor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:48:06 +0000

I have to echo some other comments people have made. I think there are a lot of valid reasons to oppose the Clinton administration and find fault with President Clinton but this kind of scandal mongering and rumorspreading is without merit or validity.

Let’s stick to facts and truth, not rumors and sleaze, Juliette. I hold you in high esteem and find you very quotable but this is just beneath you.

By: Yankev

Yankev — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:02:53 +0000

LaShawn, I have no love for the Clintons, and I trust either of them as far as I can throw both of them. But I trust whatreallyhappended.com — your source for the Clinton death list — even less. After a few minutes on that web site, I wanted to wash my hands and my mouth thoroughly. Among other things we “learn” at that site: 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by Israelis with a time bomb who wanted, with the complicity of the Bush administration, to frame the Arabs; the damage to the twin towers is not consistent with the official explanation that they were deliberately struck by flying aircraft; anyone who criticizes Israel is smeared as an anti-Semite; the Republicans systematically stole the 2004 election via rigged machines, voter intimidation and voter suppression; and on and on. This guy is a nut case, and I’m disappointed to see you or any other reputable blogger give him a credibility that he does not deserve.

By: Kman

Kman — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:03:57 +0000

Too sarcastic, and partially off-topic. – Admin

By: Independent Conservative

Independent Conservative — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:49:54 +0000

Clinton Lied, People Died and Felons Were Freed. But hey, he can play a sax, so he’s cool right?

By: suek

suek — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:43:16 +0000

“Preaching but not practicing is what makes one a hypocrite.”

Very concise definition.

>>But Iâ€™m not shocked by the idea that the Clintonâ€™s are capable of being culpable.>>

That makes two of us…it’s so easy when there is so much power concentrated in one/two person/s. It could even be unintentional – as in a sycophant taking literally a statement such as “I wish I could get rid of XXX”. The problem with conspiracies is that if you want to cover them up, it pretty much comes down to getting rid of everybody who might even possibly have any proof, and proof hides in very strange places. I don’t expect to live long enough for even the Kennedy “conspiracy” to be proven (and you can’t prove a negative, so “no conspiracy” _can’t_ be proven), much less anything from the Clintons.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:44:49 +0000

It’s SPRING La Shawn… Be careful of ‘thin ice’..

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:52 +0000

Hardly seems fair for so many to be picking on La Shawn for posting this-I don’t find it hard to believe that the Clinton’s could be latter day Borgias. Bill obviously had the appetites of Cesare, Hillary the political…grace…of Lucrezia.
Is it hard to believe that someone with political power who rapes women would shy away from murder to protect that power? Or that a woman who would remain married to a rapist, keeping his secrets, would be too squeamish if her political life were in danger?
I have no idea if Brown and Foster were assassinated-God Knows, and will judge. But I’m not shocked by the idea that the Clinton’s are capable of being culpable.

By: Derrick

Derrick — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:51:07 +0000

You again. Never have I bothered to comment on “liberal conspiracy theories.” – Admin

By: Ian MacD.

Ian MacD. — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:12:45 +0000

The problem is that most conspiracies are very small. The whole idea of a vast conspiracy is ludicrous, as someone will invariably talk and get the conspirators arrested/executed/imprisoned/whatever. Clinton is a first class weasel, but the evidence that he had so many people killed is shaky at best.

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:35:17 +0000

Hey, I’m just putting it out there, people. I don’t buy all of it, but it does raise suspicion. By the way, I don’t read leftist blogs, so I know of no conspiracy theories to condemn.

By: Daisy

Daisy — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:31:13 +0000

Don’t ever condemn the left’s ability to believe any conspiracy theory a goin’ if you’re gonna be that gullible about the “crimes” of the Clinton family. I thought you were above all that, La Shawn!