Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[dc1971]

Sherrod wasn't maimed.

Are you sure about that?

 

[dc1971]

You can't actually argue that Breitbart is wrong unless you concede that the NAACP is too.

And how, pray tell, was the NAACP WRONG?

 

[dc1971]

There wasn't one speck of trash anywhere after they left.

Oh gee, here we go with glorifying the 'trash situation' again!

 

[BenBurch]

...

There wasn't one speck of trash anywhere after they left.

By definition.

 

[RandFan]

Sherrod was harmed...

... it is a legal definition.

For crying in the dark. Are there really people who do not know what that means?

source

A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest.

 

[Mumbles]

The way I see it, the NAACP had been bullying and misrepresenting various things for a long time, and nobody called them when they stepped over the line.

Well, with Brietbart they just ran smack dab into someone that pushed back twice as hard.

That's essentially what was going on. It makes total sense that you would not like that, if you were the side that was getting twice as much as you'd been dishing out without any objections for decades.

The message of Brietbart is that those times are over. Bitch if you want to, whine all you want. That'd be okay with him.

So, basically, you are again unwilling to deal with the actual evidence showing that Breitbart misrepresented the footage that he had supposedly studied closely. And instead, you wish to make vague complaints that the NAACP was somehow "bullying and misrepresenting" some group or other, at some point or other. And you are also unwilling to come to terms with the fact that you have also misrepresented the events in the footage.

First, I'm not impressed with your vague claims. Show some evidence.

Second, this is obviously hand-waving. What the NAACP did at any point has no bearing on whether or not Breitbart was a liar. Which he was. Thus, if you wish to complain about the NAACP, start another thread.

 

[leftysergeant]

The way I see it, the NAACP had been bullying and misrepresenting various things for a long time, and nobody called them when they stepped over the line.

Yeah. How dare them uppity ******* keep the pressure on the rednecks not to go back to the Jim Crow days. Don't they know that racism is dead?

Well, at least the Newtmare said it is...

Come to think of it, that's bull ****.

Well, with Brietbart they just ran smack dab into someone that pushed back twice as hard.

Yeah, racismis still putting up a fight, even as its practioners, like the sludge monster shriek that it is dead and that we no longer need one of the oldest organizations that has fought the good fight against that cancer in the collective human soul.

The message of Brietbart is that those times are over. Bitch if you want to, whine all you want. That'd be okay with him.

Don't count on it. Worthless globs of vile slime like Breitbart will not be allowed to turn back history. Get a clue. The NAACP have been a force for the advancement of humanity, and the sludge monster was trying to drag us back into the primordial slime. We still need the NAACP. We never did need the sludge monster or his pet pimp.

 

[leftysergeant]

So, basically, you are again unwilling to deal with the actual evidence showing that Breitbart misrepresented the footage that he had supposedly studied closely. And instead, you wish to make vague complaints that the NAACP was somehow "bullying and misrepresenting" some group or other, at some point or other.

Which, of course, puts the sludge monster in the same bag of depraved from which punk boy Pat Buchanan and his snarling, arfing sister escaped. Thier sort labor under the delusion that an improvement in the lives of black people can only come at the expense of white people.

What total idiots these racists are!

 

[mhaze]

Of course not. They save it to dump on rallies and town halls of peole they oppose. They also inflitrate the areas in which opponents are operating with thugs to commit acts of violence.

Of course. I understand now.

 

[mhaze]

...The NAACP have been a force for the advancement of humanity,....

At one time. Most of us have moved forward from those times. You can too if you try a bit.

...We still need the NAACP. ....

No, we don't. I guess you could argue that they could be useful if they changed their focus from that which is their charter. Because their charter is the advancement of colored people, isn't it?

 

[leftysergeant]

At one time. Most of us have moved forward from those times.

The dirtbags who tried to kill me in 1968 are probably still alive and teaching their grandkids to same crap their granfathers taught them. The laws have changed, most rednecks haven't.

I guess you could argue that they could be useful if they changed their focus from that which is their charter. Because their charter is the advancement of colored people, isn't it?

NAACP knows that you do not advance one people over another and call it success. Time for you lot to learn that , too.

 

[Whiplash]

I agree with this, I've never understood the 'don't speak ill of the dead' crap. This is especially true for people who's only redeeming act was to die.

I want to address this, as it comes up every time someone dies, and people make negative comments about them.

In my opinion, the whole thing about reverence for the dead is at least as much about the loved ones left behind. Whether direct family, loved ones, etc.. They are in mourning. And how brutal is it to have to see, everywhere you go, liberals dancing with glee and being incredibly crass and offensive about it?

I only read a few pages here, but I've seen the very same type of excuses as always. Most notably that they are just giving back to him what he gave out in life. That's a load of crap. There are about a million phrases that speak to this. Two wrongs don't make a right.. don't stoop to their level, etc.

No one can justify their behavior like this. It's a fallacy.

The sad fact is, people are only able to do so because their emotional investment into their ideology is so strong, that it makes them irrational. They hated this guy.. And they can't even hold back for a couple of days before slagging him off horribly.

It's absolutely indefensible and wrong to anyone who is objective. But I'm not seeing any objectivity in this thread. I'm seeing people who are very quick to excuse themselves from very crass behavior, based on the behavior of the person they are attacking. And a ton of rationalizing.

 

[Neally]

In my opinion, the whole thing about reverence for the dead is at least as much about the loved ones left behind. Whether direct family, loved ones, etc.. They are in mourning. And how brutal is it to have to see, everywhere you go, liberals dancing with glee and being incredibly crass and offensive about it?

Don't you understand? The family is just as guilty by association and justly deserves any and all the brutality heaped upon them:

I do not even care about the widow. She should have known he was a monster.

 

[Whiplash]

Conservatives often project their own shortcommings onto their opponents.

It's true. But liberals are also quite often in denial about their own intolerance and viciousness. I see it every damn day, all over the web. It drives me nuts. They are often the most intolerant people in the discussion. But in their minds, it's justified. It's always justified. The ends always justify the means.

 

[Whiplash]

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.

Speaking of projection...

I for one do not feel this way at all. I have numerous times been quick to call out the bad people on my side.. Like Glenn Beck.. Or even Gingrich, who I think is a cad.

The right routinely throws people under the bus that make them look bad. They were very quick to distance themselves from a number of republicans who did bad things, or did things that don't live up to their "moral code".

Yet in my experience, I almost never see liberals do the same. They never throw anyone under the bus. Even scum like Ted Kennedy, or idiots like Anthony Weiner. If you can defend the likes of Ted Kennedy, you are clearly willing to defend anything.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

legacy

I only read a few pages here, but I've seen the very same type of excuses as always. Most notably that they are just giving back to him what he gave out in life. That's a load of crap. There are about a million phrases that speak to this. Two wrongs don't make a right.. don't stoop to their level, etc.

Whiplash,

I don't know which comments to which you refer, but what you wrote has nothing to do with mine. The only reason this thread exists is because Mr. Breitbart was a public figure. I don't see anything wrong with assessing his legacy. I am not giving back to him what he gave out; I am saying that his standards were lax and I hope others on the right or left do not emulate that aspect of his work. The new era of citizen journalism, which he helped to usher in, is very much a mixed blessing.

 

[leftysergeant]

The right routinely throws people under the bus that make them look bad. They were very quick to distance themselves from a number of republicans who did bad things, or did things that don't live up to their "moral code".

Yet in my experience, I almost never see liberals do the same. They never throw anyone under the bus. Even scum like Ted Kennedy, or idiots like Anthony Weiner. If you can defend the likes of Ted Kennedy, you are clearly willing to defend anything.

You still have Diapers Vitter and the Rushblob smelling up the room.

 

[RandFan]

It's absolutely indefensible and wrong to anyone who is objective. But I'm not seeing any objectivity in this thread. I'm seeing people who are very quick to excuse themselves from very crass behavior, based on the behavior of the person they are attacking. And a ton of rationalizing.

? Morality is a priori, objective? What is the basis for your assertions about objectivity? I think it can be reasonably argued that not speaking ill of the dead is a moral good. But I'm really curious how you determine that speaking ill of the dead is proof of a lack of objectivity. Help me out with that.

 

[Roadtoad]

(Snip) No, we don't. I guess you could argue that they could be useful if they changed their focus from that which is their charter. Because their charter is the advancement of colored people, isn't it?

Considering where they have spent the last 400 years, don't you think there's a reason for such a charter?

Quite honestly, what are you willing to do to fulfill the stated goal of the NAACP, which is racial EQUALITY, and thereby negate the need for them? Personally if I had to guess, I'd think most people would welcome their money being able to go elsewhere, rather than having to fight something we should have gotten straight over two centuries ago.

 

[mhaze]

The dirtbags who tried to kill me in 1968 are probably still alive and teaching their grandkids to same crap their granfathers taught them. The laws have changed, most rednecks haven't.



NAACP knows that you do not advance one people over another and call it success. Time for you lot to learn that , too.

Well, I think you are wrong about both those points. Or maybe not, maybe they tried to teach their grandkids.

And got laughed at.

NAACP is just another corrupt, self serving organization today. But it's one BASED on racism.