• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

Neally said:
Did you even read your cite? The story talks about him standing by his statements regarding the Pigford settlement, not by the misrepresented racist statements in the video.
Click to expand...

No, it talks about him standing by his statements regarding the Pigford settlement and Sherrod's supposed role in its (and the USDA's) anti-white-farmer policy, as exemplified by the misrepresented racist statements in the video of Sherrod's speech to the USDA. The article is saying that Sherrod's involvement in Pigford is actually Breitbart's defense in the lawsuit she filed over Breitbart's posting of the video and the comments he made about her - that the edited video and Breitbart's claims about the supposedly racist sentiments in it aren't defamatory because they're true.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
When 60 Minutes aired the Bush memos hoax I was angry. Dan Rather's excuse that he wasn't the one who produced the story was pathetic. I called for his firing. I wonder how many people coming to Breitbart's defense over this affair came to Rather's defense?
Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure it was a hoax, but I am sure he didn't vet it properly, and it can't be proven.
 
Excellent topic and thread for liberals to show their true colors on, apparently. But is not just local posters on JREF.

From the excellent blog www.Instatpundit.com



Twitter Hate: The Left’s Breitbart Memorial. Retweet all the nasty stuff they say — it’s what Andrew would have wanted. He liked to expose these people for who they were, rather than who they pretended to be. He continues to do that even in death.

And reader Jonathan Rubinstein writes: “The outpouring of ghoulish and sophmoric hatred at the death of Andrew Breitbart is a warning to us all that the remaking of America is not a conversation over coffee in the late afternoon. The real struggles that are ahead have hardly begun. Politics is ruthless and the failed political class will not go quietly. The disgusting comments are a tribute to the decline not of civility — there has never been much in America — but the complete disintegration of self-respect. We will engage, we will remake America, we will miss Breitbart but there will be many more joining the struggle.”
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
No, it talks about him standing by his statements regarding the Pigford settlement and Sherrod's supposed role in its (and the USDA's) anti-white-farmer policy, as exemplified by the misrepresented racist statements in the video of Sherrod's speech to the USDA. The article is saying that Sherrod's involvement in Pigford is actually Breitbart's defense in the lawsuit she filed over Breitbart's posting of the video and the comments he made about her - that the edited video and Breitbart's claims about the supposedly racist sentiments in it aren't defamatory because they're true.
Click to expand...
That's quite the fantasy you've concocted. He in no way suggested that the misrepresented racist statements were true. He knows they weren't, he had admitted that he failed to review the unedited version before he posted it. But thanks for doing the very thing you accuse him of doing, misrepresenting what someone said.
 
Neally said:
That's quite the fantasy you've concocted. He in no way suggested that the misrepresented racist statements were true. He knows they weren't, he had admitted that he failed to review the unedited version before he posted it. But thanks for doing the very thing you accuse him of doing, misrepresenting what someone said.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you can explain why he brought up the Pigford settlement (and specifically Sherrod's role in it) in response to her defamation lawsuit over the edited video and his comments about that?

Did he go off on some tangential non sequitur, maybe? Or did he just have the World's Worst Lawyer? ("I know, we'll argue that the defamatory lies you posted don't count as defamatory lies because you also wrote a bunch of other stuff about something completely unrelated to those defamatory lies!")
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
No, they're not "just speech" that his political opponents don't like (which is the part of your argument that I'm addressing, not the "calling for her firing" part). They're actionable offenses, meaning that Breitbart would be (depending on the outcome of the suit) responsible both legally and monetarily for his role in what happened to Shirley Sherrod.

In fact, these types of lawsuits are precisely because people like Breitbart try to avoid the responsibility for the deliberate and intentional harm caused by their statements by hiding behind the "hey, it's just words, don't we have free speech in this country?" defense.
Click to expand...

Breitbart might have been a dishonest hack, but he didn't fire Shirley Sherrod- the Obama administration did. Instead of throwing her under the bus out of terror of what Glenn Beck might have said on his show, they also had every opportunity to check out the facts instead of taking their cue from one website.

I suppose next we'll say that Breitbart exposed Anthony Weiner, when he clearly exposed himself. :p
 
mhaze said:
Excellent topic and thread for liberals to show their true colors on, apparently.
Click to expand...

One does not need to be a Liberal to look at an evil person and to have nothing good to say upon his demise.

Will anybody say anything nice about Charles Manson?

Manson killed nobody at all. All he did was "speech".

Is anybody going to anything nice about Rupert Murdoch after he invaded the privacy of so many people including the families of dead children? Wasn't that just freedom of the press?

No, when evil dies, good men eulogize it by repeating its sins as a lesson to be learned. Evil men seek out excuses for it, and build it up into a paragon of virtue.
 
ravdin said:
Breitbart might have been a dishonest hack, but he didn't fire Shirley Sherrod- the Obama administration did. Instead of throwing her under the bus out of terror of what Glenn Beck might have said on his show, they also had every opportunity to check out the facts instead of taking their cue from one website.
Click to expand...

Vilsack and the Obama administration certainly bear their share of responsibility for what they did to Sherrod. But that doesn't absolve Breitbart for his role in this, either.

And it definitely doesn't excuse what he said and posted about her.
 
BenBurch said:
One does not need to be a Liberal to look at an evil person and to have nothing good to say upon his demise.

Will anybody say anything nice about Charles Manson?

Manson killed nobody at all. All he did was "speech".

Is anybody going to anything nice about Rupert Murdoch after he invaded the privacy of so many people including the families of dead children? Wasn't that just freedom of the press?

No, when evil dies, good men eulogize it by repeating its sins as a lesson to be learned. Evil men seek out excuses for it, and build it up into a paragon of virtue.
Click to expand...

As someone else commenting about this said, "Every man's death diminishes me, but the death of a self-serving vicious racist liar diminishes me less than most."
 
ravdin said:
Breitbart might have been a dishonest hack, but he didn't fire Shirley Sherrod- the Obama administration did. Instead of throwing her under the bus out of terror of what Glenn Beck might have said on his show, they also had every opportunity to check out the facts instead of taking their cue from one website.

I suppose next we'll say that Breitbart exposed Anthony Weiner, when he clearly exposed himself. :p
Click to expand...

And the man who yelled, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater didn't trample those people, the stampeding crowd did.
 
Am I the only one who has no idea who the guy was? I had heard the name, and had the vague notion that we was some sort of right wing nut, but don't recall ever reading a single thing he wrote, and looking at his picture on CNN, I don't recall ever even seeing him on TV. Maybe I was watching the wrong shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom