Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

I'm not in the "good riddance" camp, but I am in the "meh" camp, that's really not too unusual if we're honest with ourselves. He was a mad idiot and the quintessence of insane right-wing paranoia.

On the sub-discussion here: while a person's death should really not ever warm the heart, I don't think I'll ever understand being deferential to someone who's dead purely because he's dead. First of all, being deferential should've been saved for when he was actually alive to appreciate your deference, but more than that, a whole life was still lead and its end shouldn't mean a sudden censoring of criticism or a biting of lips because the actions and words still happened.
 
Olowkow said:
So who shall defend the man then? Sad to think that the only legacy one leaves is a reputation for being unpleasant.
Click to expand...

We start writing a book when we are born.

Everything we are and everything we do is in that book.

When we die, the hand of nature writes "Fini" at the end and the book goes on the shelf.

What is in there is what you wrote.

There is nobody else to blame.
 
So are Breitbart's attacks on Ted Kennedy really the equivalent of the attacks here against Breitbart?

No, I think not. I think there's a fundamental difference. The problem with Kennedy wasn't simply his politics, with which Breitbart obviously disagreed. Kennedy acted reprehensibly in his personal life too. He did things for which there is no excuse, things which don't stem from political ideological differences but from his own personal character. Chappaquiddick is the most notorious example, but it's not the only one. And it's those actions which earned him the attacks from Breitbart even in death.

But what about Breitbart himself? Has he acted similarly? If his critics were honest, they would have to acknowledge that no, he hasn't. Everything bad that they accuse him of comes from his politics. Everything he's done wrong has been only speech that they don't like. Speech is not immune from criticism, but it's still just speech, there isn't anything else that he's done.

Now, some of you will still conclude that he deserves such insults even in death. But are these attacks the same as his response to Kennedy's death? No. Justified or not, it isn't the same.
 
Brainster said:
An excuse. I am sure that when other conservatives died (e.g., Reagan) who never said a negative word about anybody's passing, they reacted just as classlessly.
Click to expand...

And I recall when there was gravedancing about Ted Kennedy's death in this thread (including a reposting of Breitbart's own vile comments mentioned above), you also complained about the way some conservatives were handling it crassly and that you weren't surprised, the same way you complained about "liberals" in this thread.

Oh, wait...no you didn't. Sorry, my bad.
 
Legend said:
I'm not in the "good riddance" camp, but I am in the "meh" camp, that's really not too unusual if we're honest with ourselves. He was a mad idiot and the quintessence of insane right-wing paranoia.

On the sub-discussion here: while a person's death should really not ever warm the heart, I don't think I'll ever understand being deferential to someone who's dead purely because he's dead. First of all, being deferential should've been saved for when he was actually alive to appreciate your deference, but more than that, a whole life was still lead and its end shouldn't mean a sudden censoring of criticism or a biting of lips because the actions and words still happened.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
But what about Breitbart himself? Has he acted similarly? If his critics were honest, they would have to acknowledge that no, he hasn't. Everything bad that they accuse him of comes from his politics. Everything he's done wrong has been only speech that they don't like. Speech is not immune from criticism, but it's still just speech, there isn't anything else that he's done.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Shirley Sherrod would disagree.
 
Editing the Shirley Sherod video to exclude her confession that her thoughts and actions were wrong and her penance to save the farm was a cynical and malicious act.
 
ANTPogo said:
I'm sure Shirley Sherrod would disagree.
Click to expand...

Then she would be wrong. Breitbart wasn't the one who fired her. Hell, he didn't even call for her firing, though even that would still be just speech.
 
BenBurch said:
How is that different from destroying somebody's reputation and career with a provable and intentional lie?
Click to expand...

You don't see the difference between speech and driving someone off a bridge so that they drown? Because I think it's kind of obvious.
 
Ziggurat said:
So are Breitbart's attacks on Ted Kennedy really the equivalent of the attacks here against Breitbart?

No, I think not. I think there's a fundamental difference. The problem with Kennedy wasn't simply his politics, with which Breitbart obviously disagreed. Kennedy acted reprehensibly in his personal life too. He did things for which there is no excuse, things which don't stem from political ideological differences but from his own personal character. Chappaquiddick is the most notorious example, but it's not the only one. And it's those actions which earned him the attacks from Breitbart even in death.

But what about Breitbart himself? Has he acted similarly? If his critics were honest, they would have to acknowledge that no, he hasn't. Everything bad that they accuse him of comes from his politics. Everything he's done wrong has been only speech that they don't like. Speech is not immune from criticism, but it's still just speech, there isn't anything else that he's done.

Now, some of you will still conclude that he deserves such insults even in death. But are these attacks the same as his response to Kennedy's death? No. Justified or not, it isn't the same.
Click to expand...

I am not too concerned about the already dead who Breitbart attacked. Kennedy . . . baaaad . . . blah blah blah. No big deal - Kennnedy's political opponents have been doing that since long before Kennedy died. In this case, Breitbart was simply throwing mud in an old mudhole.

The hard working and honest living people he damaged are much more important. All due to politics, none of it due to reprehensible actions by these people. Their politics alone earned them career destroying attacks from Breitbart. Kennedy was a public figure, wealthy and able to defend himself, fair game in many ways. Many of the living people Breitbart tried to destroy are not.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then she would be wrong. Breitbart wasn't the one who fired her. Hell, he didn't even call for her firing, though even that would still be just speech.
Click to expand...

I think less of your moral character after that statement.

Try to take off the political glasses for a second and look at what he really did.

If one of my friends on the Left had done anything like this, I would be vilifying them as loudly as I could.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Death is absolutely not the worst thing that can happen to a human being.

You don't have to live with the consequences for years and years.
Click to expand...

Wait... what?

You're actually, seriously suggesting that what happened to Shirley Sherrod is worse than what happened to Mary Jo Kopechne?

That's perhaps the stupidest thing you've ever said, Ben. I hope that it's the stupidest thing you ever will say, because I don't think I want to see you try to top this.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then she would be wrong. Breitbart wasn't the one who fired her. Hell, he didn't even call for her firing, though even that would still be just speech.
Click to expand...

I think Breitbart's 15 minutes were up, nobody sane was willing to listen to his speech any more, and dying is the only way he could get back into the headlines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom