Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[applecorped]

Maybe the sludgemonster knew he was never going to be more than a punchline for jokes in history classes, so he made up a scandalous tape and then offed himself so nobody could challenge him because we are not supposed to speak ill of the dead, including the evil ones like him.

Or maybe he offed himself some that it would be hard for the people he has wronged to make any recovery against his estate.

Or maybe he was so full of venom and hatred for his opposition that he dropped dead. Makes you think, huh?

 

[bob_cadaver]

Sherrod gave her condolences to his family.

Lovely lady. That's more and better than I would have done if I were in her place.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Listening to a local call-in show this morning and the host was mentioning (though not advocating) the CT angle. Before the bottom of the hour he took two calls and both were buying it.

 

[BenBurch]

Will this be the Vince Foster for the Obama administration?

 

[mhaze]

No one here made that counterclaim. This is a straw man. Congratulations, you've defeated a straw man.



Yes, a claim that nobody made.

If the liberal is agast and apologetic at American soldiers pissing on dead Muslims, why are they so quick to piss on dead Brietbart?

Now of course I know the answer, and pose the question rhetorically to show up haters as, well, the haters they really are.

Anyway, isn't Brietbart going to get the last laugh with his Obama Harvard tapes?

 

[Moss]

If the liberal is agast and apologetic at American soldiers pissing on dead Muslims, why are they so quick to piss on dead Brietbart?

Now of course I know the answer, and pose the question rhetorically to show up haters as, well, the haters they really are.

Anyway, isn't Brietbart going to get the last laugh with his Obama Harvard tapes?

You are of course entitled to compare apples to oranges, but that does not necessarily mean everyone else has to buy the comparison or the fruit.
Or is urinating on corpses the same as calling someone a manipulative blogger?

 

[mhaze]

You are of course entitled to compare apples to oranges, but that does not necessarily mean everyone else has to buy the comparison or the fruit.
Or is urinating on corpses the same as calling someone a manipulative blogger?

There's no need to take a minute out from the narrative to act or talk rationally. Everyone well understands the lack of rationality of haters of the left such as those resident here.

Here's the guy we are talking about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fRQ2lIQ3Lg&feature=player_embedded

 

[RandFan]

His great legacy is drawing attention to the fraudulent ACORN organization. Thankfully he accomplished that before his passing.

Evidence that they were fraudulent? Even IF the videos accurately depicted what is alleged it would expose only those people involved in the videos and not the entire organization, right? An investigation would be needed to determine if the problems were systemic, right? It would be wrong to indict an entire organization on anecdotal data, right?

Just days after the videos became public we knew there was a problem. Not with ACORN, with O'Keeffe.

ACORN CEO Claims ‘Pimp’ Videographer Was Turned Away at Dozens of Offices

I contacted ACORN, O’Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart to try and get some more specific information about Lewis’ claim. Breitbart and O’Keefe are already on record saying that they weren’t turned away at any ACORN offices, a claim refuted by this police report.

Then an investigation was launched. What do you think was the result?

ACORN Totally Vindicated of All Wrongdoing

Government Accountability Office (GAO)of ACORN has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.

A review of grants by nine federal agencies found no problems with ACORN's grants.

 

[BenBurch]

The ACORN matter is proof that propaganda and "big lie" techniques still work in America.

Breitbart paid close attention to Shirer.

 

[Moss]

There's no need to take a minute out from the narrative to act or talk rationally. Everyone well understands the lack of rationality of haters of the left such as those resident here.

Here's the guy we are talking about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fRQ2lIQ3Lg&feature=player_embedded

Ok, let's talk about narratives. You try to reframe the situation into a story that equates to urinating on the dead bodies of people you killed. Is that rational?

 

[Cleon]

Very much so- I see quite often in this forum and elsewhere an extreme reluctance to criticize the Obama administration on any point whatsoever....

Whoops! You meant Breitbart, didn't you? My bad.

I find it fascinating that you don't think I meant both.

 

[BenBurch]

I find it fascinating that you don't think I meant both.

It was obvious that you meant both, and I agree.

You see your statement played out in that comment - could almost be worked into a sociology experiment.

 

[RandFan]

Very much so- I see quite often in this forum and elsewhere an extreme reluctance to criticize the Obama administration on any point whatsoever....

Whoops! You meant Breitbart, didn't you? My bad.

I have critisized Obama for many things including an unwillingness to stand up to the right, faith based initiatives, national day of prayer, failing to close Guantanamo, etc..

 

[Neally]

Do you have a cite or evidence that ACORN was a fraudulent organization?

Certainly, but seriously this is way old news. Breitbart deserves a medal for helping to draw attention to the fraud of ACORN which continues to unravel even after their demise and in their new incarnations.

The Obama administration's fault was to not actually investigate the claims, while acting on those claims. It's a mistake.

Breitbart's actions were purposeful and malicious. They were not a mistake, but dishonest and unethical.

Not at all. He admitted to the same mistake as BO administration, that of not reviewing the unedited video before acting on it.

Evidence that they were fraudulent?

Links above.

Even IF the videos accurately depicted what is alleged it would expose only those people involved in the videos and not the entire organization, right? An investigation would be needed to determine if the problems were systemic, right? It would be wrong to indict an entire organization on anecdotal data, right?

The organization was corrupt from the top down as noted by the documented links given above which cover multiple states, and doesn't even go into the whole embezzlement thing by the brother of the founder.

Then an investigation was launched. What do you think was the result?

That was one investigation on one specific issue. Many more investigations have found clear evidence of fraud.

 

[Ziggurat]

So Breitbart does deserve criticism of some sort for that then? He is the subject of discussion.

Some criticism, yes. But most of the criticism he's received about the incident is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually happened (plus frequently a willingness to assign motive without cause - see Thai's response just after yours).

 

[RandFan]

Certainly, but seriously this is way old news. Breitbart deserves a medal for helping to draw attention to the fraud of ACORN which continues to unravel even after their demise and in their new incarnations.

Accusations are evidence? How many convictions? 1? Seriously? That's your evidence? Dude, come on. Large organizations are at risk of human error. You have not proven systemic corruption. Not even close.

The organization was corrupt from the top down as noted by the documented links given above which cover multiple states, and doesn't even go into the whole embezzlement thing by the brother of the founder.

The links prove nothing of the sort.

That was one investigation on one specific issue. Many more investigations have found clear evidence of fraud.

Argument by assertion is a fallacy. How many convictions have there been?

 

[BenBurch]

Some criticism, yes. But most of the criticism he's received about the incident is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually happened (plus frequently a willingness to assign motive without cause - see Thai's response just after yours).

I didn't misunderstand a thing. He had the video. The whole video. And he lied like a dog when he pretended innocence when caught. He didn't even lie convincingly. The only people who "believed" him wanted to believe him.

 

[Tricky]

Does that apply to you then also? See the problem?

No, I see no problem. I expect it. I've already written my own obituary, and I promise you it is not a whitewash job.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Breitbart's speech at the ACU

There's no need to take a minute out from the narrative to act or talk rationally. Everyone well understands the lack of rationality of haters of the left such as those resident here.

Here's the guy we are talking about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fRQ2lIQ3Lg&feature=player_embedded

mhaze,

Mr. Breitbart strikes me as almost a conspiracy theorist in this clip, as well as someone with a great deal of anger. What I don't see is any evidence of rationality from Mr. Breitbart himself. President Obama is a totalitarian who would take away the right of the American Conservative Union to meet and speak out? I am not sure that I understand your point. What am I missing here? I have criticized the Obama administration on its lack of commitment to civil liberties, BTW.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

If the liberal is agast and apologetic at American soldiers pissing on dead Muslims, why are they so quick to piss on dead Brietbart?

Now of course I know the answer, and pose the question rhetorically to show up haters as, well, the haters they really are.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!