Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[BenBurch]

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 are entirely too decent a person to have ever been a fan of the guy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tin Machine

Why do I envision the band Rockbitch doing "Kumbaya"?

I was thinking of how Tin Machine would sound. Two of their members (Hunt and Tony) are Soupy Sales's sons. Both Soupy Sales and Orson Bean used to appear on the game show "What's my line?" One time together.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right here you dismiss his involvement in Shirley Sherrod's firing.

Dismiss it? No, I didn't dismiss it. Rather, I'm not going to make his role anything other than what it was. He did nothing other than speech. And your post doesn't contradict my claim in any way.

By your metric, most dishonest, illegal, and damaging actions could be dismissed as "just speech".

Obviously not. Theft is not speech. Murder is not speech. Vandalism is not speech. Drug use is not speech. Etc, etc, etc. Some speech is illegal, but most illegal actions are not speech. You're so far off base on this that I don't even know what made you think this in the first place.

Shirley Sherrod was a victim of Breitbart's dishonest speech

But still nothing more than speech. And thus, you have conceded my point. That is, my actual point, not whatever strange straw man might have existed in your own imagination.

 

[Neally]

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?

Regardless of how he was trying to tie the Pigford settlement into his defense, or just use the trial has some sort of grandstanding about it, your claim is false that he stuck to the racist misrepresentation in the video.

 

[Cleon]

It's always entertaining when a polarizing figure dies.

Inevitably, blog posts and forum threads devolve into an argument as to why dancing on the grave of THIS person is disgusting and typical of (insert political alignment here), but dancing on the grave of this OTHER person is perfectly acceptable (if not required).

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree. Respectfully. But adamantly.

My distaste for the deceased stems not from his politics. My distaste stems from the fact that he was an unintelligent person, a real loudmouthed dumb-ass who did not want to learn. His notion of "argument" was name-calling on par with what you'd expect from a third-grader. Regardless of political stripe, these are offensive qualities for any human being to display, and yet they are what he used to seek publicity.

But he wasn't unintelligent. If you thought he was, then you never understood what he was actually doing. He didn't become successful because just because he was loud or obnoxious or any of the other qualities you didn't like about him. He became successful because he did know what he was doing. And whether or not you like what he was doing, concluding that he was unintelligent, well, that's simply wrong. And since you don't know what he was doing (the most charitable reason for why you could conclude that he wasn't intelligent), your accusation that he did not want to learn is somewhat ironic as well.

 

[Biscuit]

I keep checking the conspiracy sub-forum for the theories to start! It was the clinton murder machine!!!

Apparently twitter is alive with the sounds of ASSASSINATION!

 

[daredelvis]

Dismiss it? No, I didn't dismiss it. Rather, I'm not going to make his role anything other than what it was. He did nothing other than speech. And your post doesn't contradict my claim in any way.



Obviously not. Theft is not speech. Murder is not speech. Vandalism is not speech. Drug use is not speech. Etc, etc, etc. Some speech is illegal, but most illegal actions are not speech. You're so far off base on this that I don't even know what made you think this in the first place.

My mistake, I meant "many dishonest, illegal, and damaging actions could be dismissed as 'just speech'".

But still nothing more than speech. And thus, you have conceded my point. That is, my actual point, not whatever strange straw man might have existed in your own imagination.

I concede no such thing, despite whatever strange ad hominem that exists in your own post.

Daredelvis

 

[RandFan]

My mistake, I meant "many dishonest, illegal, and damaging actions could be dismissed as 'just speech'".

• Libel
• Slander
• Advocating harm
• Incitement to riot

To name a few. Freedom of expression isn't a "say whatever the hell you want to" card.

Why is this being debated? Do people really not know?

 

[BenBurch]

I keep checking the conspiracy sub-forum for the theories to start! It was the clinton murder machine!!!

Apparently twitter is alive with the sounds of ASSASSINATION!

It's true.

I have to come clean.

We of the Illuminati killed him with an orbital X-ray laser.

No reason for it other than we like to sew chaos.

 

[RandFan]

It's true.

I have to come clean.

We of the Illuminati killed him with an orbital X-ray laser.

No reason for it other than we like to sew chaos.

 

[Ziggurat]

No reason for it other than we like to sew chaos.

That's because you Illuminati are nothing but a bunch of old grandmas who think that you can control the world through quilting. We reptilians sow chaos. That's how a real conspiracy rolls.

 

[BenBurch]

That's because you Illuminati are nothing but a bunch of old grandmas who think that you can control the world through quilting. We reptilians sow chaos. That's how a real conspiracy rolls.

I see you reptilians have also gotten control of my iPhone spell checker, too!

 

[Roadtoad]

I'm not sorry to see him gone. Breitbart was dishonest, cruel, and at times even vicious. And while Sherrod's suit might be done, (since Breitbart can't be sued, though his staff can), the point remains that Breitbart's actions led to her termination. We have libel and slander laws for a reason; they are not "just words." The courts have held this to be so.

There isn't any question that Breitbart would stoop to obscene levels to make his point. His "eulogy" for Kennedy was offensive. The man was anything but a saint, and he should have faced prison time for abandoning Mary Jo Kopechne as he did. Any one else would have. But Breitbart's spew did nothing to help anyone, including Breitbart himself. He simply looked petty, vindictive, hateful, cowardly.

And while I feel sympathy for his family, I'm somewhat more concerned for the people who were defamed and degraded by this person's venomous vomit of far right slime. If you want to disagree, fine, but as Brown pointed out, he dragged the tone of debate down so low, I question whether or not it will ever elevate again, or how. In the end, his "patriotism," rehashed jingoism which might resonate with supporters of Eugene McCarthy (though not with anyone interested in facts) will backfire, and policies and beliefs founded this dolt's sandy soil are going to be undermined, but not before they've done incalculable damage to everyone within spitting distance.

"Happy Warrior," my ass.

It got to the point where even in those areas where I might have agreed with the man, I couldn't, simply on the basis of principle. When the lies are so intertwined with the policy, you can no longer trust the policy. His destructive path cut across political lines and will be revealed as doing untold damage.

As I said, I feel for his family. My grief, though, is reserved for Breitbart's victims: political discourse, rational thought, open discussion, respect for those you disagree with, courage, integrity, and genuine passion.

See ya, Andy. Sorry you left us like this. I'd have appreciated seeing you have to gain an understanding of the damage you did to the country you claimed you love.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see you reptilians have also gotten control of my iPhone spell checker, too!

It's deeper than you can possibly imagine.
http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/
No one is beyond our grasp.

 

[bynmdsue]

Will anybody say anything nice about Charles Manson?

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

Breaking into someone's house and tying them up is speech? Well, all right.

 

[BenBurch]

Breaking into someone's house and tying them up is speech? Well, all right.

He was convicted of murder, however.

 

[RandFan]

Breaking into someone's house and tying them up is speech? Well, all right.

When did Manson break into someone's house? Really?

 

[timhau]

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 are entirely too decent a person to have ever been a fan of the guy.

That bad, eh?

 

[Complexity]

The world is a better place without him.