Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[Ziggurat]

Good post.

It's a crappy post filled with strawmen. But then, you wouldn't know, because you can't even see half the conversation. Yet you still feel you're in a position to provide commentary.

Pathetic.

 

[Roadtoad]

What, the existence of a lawsuit proves its merits?

Not at all.

But most of us have seen what Breitbart did with what he was given. He did not apologize for using only part of Sherrod's speech, he defended this action. The lawsuit will possibly be stopped not because the suit lacked merit, but because Breitbart, the respondent, is now dead.

It's the evidence which proves the merits of the suit. It's been shown time and again. Google it if you wish.

 

[BenBurch]

Good post.

Thank you.

This is part of why I will do things like go out on Chicago streets and pass out clean needles and condoms to street people. Death doesn't scare me. Was almost there a couple times now, too.

But being maimed; That I have also experienced. 28 years ago, September 11th 1984 I was in a horrific head-on collision and to this day I cannot walk without pain, and sometimes it absolutely does disable me. (Wish I had been on of those multi-million dollar lawsuit judgements. After the lawyers were all done and the medical bills had been paid I had only $24K in compensation...)

 

[Ziggurat]

Not at all.

But most of us have seen what Breitbart did with what he was given. He did not apologize for using only part of Sherrod's speech, he defended this action. The lawsuit will possibly be stopped not because the suit lacked merit, but because Breitbart, the respondent, is now dead.

It's the evidence which proves the merits of the suit. It's been shown time and again. Google it if you wish.

I think I'm sufficiently aware of the facts of the case. I don't share your interpretation of those facts. Can you accept a disagreement, or is that beyond the pale?

 

[BenBurch]

It's a crappy post filled with strawmen. But then, you wouldn't know, because you can't even see half the conversation. Yet you still feel you're in a position to provide commentary.

Pathetic.

Why are you being like this? I have not seen you acting like this before.

 

[Ziggurat]

Death doesn't scare me. Was almost there a couple times now, too.

But being maimed;

Sherrod wasn't maimed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why are you being like this? I have not seen you acting like this before.

Because I've never seen you say anything so stupid as Sherrod having suffered worse than Kopechne. And after having said something so stupid, to then accuse me of refusing to admit mistakes, well, it pissed me off. If that was your goal, you accomplished it. Congratulations.

 

[BenBurch]

Sherrod wasn't maimed.

Maiming is just another kind of damage a person has to live with their whole life.

Do you think that Raymond Donovan wasn't damaged for life by what was done to him?

 

[jj]

Sherrod wasn't maimed.

She's retired due to injury to reputation. What are you trying to say here?

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, I am off for a few hours here. Do not interpret silence to be consent.

 

[RandFan]

Not at all.

But most of us have seen what Breitbart did with what he was given. He did not apologize for using only part of Sherrod's speech, he defended this action. The lawsuit will possibly be stopped not because the suit lacked merit, but because Breitbart, the respondent, is now dead.

It's the evidence which proves the merits of the suit. It's been shown time and again. Google it if you wish.

I so hope the law suit can continue. He needs an official "you were an ass" footnote. Not that there isn't an unofficial one of course.

 

[Roadtoad]

I think I'm sufficiently aware of the facts of the case. I don't share your interpretation of those facts. Can you accept a disagreement, or is that beyond the pale?

I can, and do, accept disagreement. I just happen to believe you're wrong: Sherrod was defamed. I believe it was Breitbart's actions which defamed her. Breitbart's actions were wrong.

As has been said, if you wish to debate, that's fine. That's for another thread.

Personally, I think BenBurch is wrong, too. Death is no improvement over defamation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maiming is just another kind of damage a person has to live with their whole life.

Do you think that Raymond Donovan wasn't damaged for life by what was done to him?

You keep trying to point out ways that other people were hurt badly. But not once have you tried to defend the actual relevant claim, that Sherrod herself was hurt worse than if she had died. She would agree with that sentiment herself. It's simply not credible.

 

[Ziggurat]

She's retired due to injury to reputation. What are you trying to say here?

That what happened to her isn't worse than death. It's considerably less bad. Do you disagree?

 

[Neally]

While there are certainly ideologues on this board I hop you werent calling RandFan one. This is a poster that has shifted his core beliefs several times over his years here as new evidence has presented itself. He is a fine example of what people are supposed[/] to do with critical thinking and, along with very few others such as Roadtoad, is generally respected by those arguing against him as well as for him.

Shifting positions and then hand waving away the facts while using tu quote examples doesn't make him immune to the fact that he has dug into his new position and behaves like all the other ideologues

Um, if you say that "any organization with a similar history to ACORN would be similarly called fraudulent", and RandFan gives you examples of organizations with similar histories that haven't been called "fraudulent", that's not a tu quoque, that's you being proven wrong in your assertion.

Um, no, I am saying if those other organizations display similar behavior, the are fraudulent. Perhaps you can open a thread about them and we can review the facts.

Which is probably why you immediately tried to handwave the whole thing away.

The only handwaving was done by Randfan. I'm not about to be drawn into his off topic tu quote arguments.

The thing is, if there were criminality as you suppose then one would think that after all of this time there would be hard evidence as there is hard evidence for Murdoch. Where are the emails? Where are the witnesses? To say your insistence in this matter given the dearth of evidence is disappointing is an understatement.

Again with the Murdoch thing. As I said, you've obviously lost your objectivity on this one and I'm done serving up evidence for you to hand wave away.

It's not that the liberals want to argue with your facts. Rather it's the very fact that Brietbart accurately struct to the heart of the corruption with Acorn, or that he accurately reported the NAACP issue with Shirly, that infuriates them so much.

In other words, the truth is infuriating and must be repudiated, as well as any who brought it. And if such a person is dead, well, guess what?

He can't argue back.

So true.

It's not just him. The Right can never admit that it was wrong about anything. Admitting error is to them a sign of weakness.

Breibart admitted to his error in not reviewing the unedited version of the Sherrod tape. It was a mistake and sloppy journalism on his part. Unfortunately the left can't admit that ACORN was the corrupt organization that it was.

 

[RandFan]

Again with the Murdoch thing. As I said, you've obviously lost your objectivity on this one and I'm done serving up evidence for you to hand wave away.

It's not a "thing". It's a substantive point that demonstrates very well the benchmark for determining criminality. Obviously you aren't going to continue because you don't have anything. No emails. No witnesses. After all of this time no hard evidence that the company was involved in a pattern of crime. And there is a very good alternative explanation. There is motivation for employees to autonomously commit fraud as the examples I gave you demonstrate.

You failed utterly and now you cannot simply admit that you were wrong so you have to attack me.

 

[RandFan]

Shifting positions and then hand waving away the facts while using tu quote examples doesn't make him immune to the fact that he has dug into his new position and behaves like all the other ideologues.

Says the guy who refuses to address the facts and instead accuses me of fallacy when there clearly is no fallacy. There was no tu quoque. I didn't try to excuse the behavior of one with the other. That's utter nonsense. I used the example of Gingrich to show that voter fraud can and does happen independently of leadership. I used Murdoch to show what one should expect to find in an organization of corruption. Evidence of crime. Emails. People willing to testify to crime. You've got none of that. I'm not hand waving, YOU ARE.

Facts:

1. You have no direct evidence tying management to a fraction of their employees (unlike the evidence against Murdochs company).
2. There is motivation on the part of the employees to commit fraud independently of management (they can get paid without working).

So run away and accuse me for your unwillingness to face the facts.

 

[leftysergeant]

Unfortunately the left can't admit that ACORN was the corrupt organization that it was.

There is one thing wrong with your position here.

Ya got no evidence.

No, the crap that the recently departed sludge monster smeared on the wall is not evidence.

Nor is the ranting of any reich-wing radio blathermeister with an ear cricket problem.

 

[RandFan]

The only handwaving was done by Randfan. I'm not about to be drawn into his off topic tu quote [sic] arguments.

Can you explain how they are tu quoque?

Given my penchant for typos and bad grammar I don't normally point out mistakes but it looks like this is becoming a pattern so let me help you out.

t-u q-u-o-q-u-e

And BTW, I often get that wrong. I live in a glass house.

 

[Neally]

No emails. No witnesses. After all of this time no hard evidence that the company was involved in a pattern of crime. And there is a very good alternative explanation. There is motivation for employees to autonomously commit fraud as the examples I gave you demonstrate.
Facts:

You have no direct evidence tying management to a fraction of their employees (unlike the evidence against Murdochs company).
There is motivation on the part of the employees to commit fraud independently of management (they can get paid without working).

Let's see, brother of the founder is an embezzler within the organization, the executives of the organization attempt a coverup and fire people that want to know the truth, managers and low level employees are found to have committing voter registration fraud. Nothin to see here. Move along, move along.

New York Communities for Change (NYCC) staffers reportedly collected money door-to-door for the group’s campaign to test schools for dangerous toxins and then commingled those funds with cash raised for a teachers union and to support Occupy Wall Street.To cover up the funding funny business, NYCC executive director Jon Kest has reportedly threatened and fired employees, destroyed documentary evidence, ordered staffers not to speak to the media, and ordered the installation of surveillance cameras and recording devices at NYCC headquarters in Brooklyn. NYCC is also reportedly destroying items that reference ACORN in an effort to cover up NYCC’s intimate working relationship with the ACORN network. Isolated employees, independently of management, pay no attention, move along, move along.

In Nevada, ACORN pleaded guilty to one felony count of unlawful compensation for registration of voters, stemming from an illegal voter registration scheme in its Las Vegas office during in the 2008 race. The group paid a bonus to workers to sign up 21 or more voters per shift, calling the program "21," or "Blackjack." It is illegal in Nevada to pay bonuses to register voters. Um, well this management was independent of the other real management. Nothing to worry about. Move along.

Ya got no evidence.

Yep, handwave away all of the above, just like your fellow ideologues.

Can you explain how they are tu quoque?

Yes, and forgive the typo, I meant Tu quoque. Your claim is that the GOP and Gingrich are just as guilty therefore ACORN is not guilty. In fact that I have repeatedly said that if any organization displays the same pattern of corruption and fraud, then yes, they too can be seen as corrupt. Whether those other organizations do in fact have a similar history of fraud and corruption is something I'm not going to get into since this isn't about them. Open another thread and discuss it there.