• 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

mhaze said:
It's not that the liberals want to argue with your facts. Rather it's the very fact that Brietbart accurately struct to the heart of the corruption with Acorn, or that he accurately reported the NAACP issue with Shirly, that infuriates them so much.

In other words, the truth is infuriating and must be repudiated, as well as any who brought it. And if such a person is dead, well, guess what?

He can't argue back.

Or can he?
Click to expand...

Except, of course, that he was obviously wrong on all counts. His description of what happened at O'Keefe's ACORN sting, his claim that Sherrod was happy to discuss her racism (she wasn't-she specifically set the story up as a redemption tale), his claims that the folks listening to her speak were happy about how she initially ignored the white farmer (they sat silently when she discussed this, and began applauding when she described how she helped the farmer out after she discovered that the lawyer she had directed him to wasn't providing any real aid). All wrong.

Basically, the defense seems to be that Breitbart meant to defame the NAACP, and that defaming Shirley Sherrod was merely his way of doing that. Which makes him far worse.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Zig,

Serious here; why are you defending the indefensible?
Click to expand...

That's really just the same as saying, "why do you disagree with me?" Because frankly I don't think he's indefensible. And I don't exactly see you calling out the NAACP on their outright fabrications.
 
Mumbles said:
Except, of course, that he was obviously wrong on all counts. His description of what happened at O'Keefe's ACORN sting, his claim that Sherrod was happy to discuss her racism (she wasn't-she specifically set the story up as a redemption tale), his claims that the folks listening to her speak were happy about how she initially ignored the white farmer (they sat silently when she discussed this, and began applauding when she described how she helped the farmer out after she discovered that the lawyer she had directed him to wasn't providing any real aid). All wrong.

Basically, the defense seems to be that Breitbart meant to defame the NAACP, and that defaming Shirley Sherrod was merely his way of doing that. Which makes him far worse.
Click to expand...
:)
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is it weakness, admitting you crossed a boundary, made a mistake, did not have all the facts? If anything, I would think that would be a sign of genuine strength: "I did not know this before, but I do now, and admit I was in error."
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

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...
Ziggurat said:
Wait... what?

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

Still waiting on that admission, Ben.
 
Roadtoad said:
How is it weakness, admitting you crossed a boundary, made a mistake, did not have all the facts? If anything, I would think that would be a sign of genuine strength: "I did not know this before, but I do now, and admit I was in error."
Click to expand...

I wish I knew. I see it as a sign of strength.

Possibly they believe they are in fact so weak that they cannot give an inch?
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is why we can never ever trust these guys with control of the military ever again, or at least until they get over their god fetish.
 
BenBurch said:
We can discuss NAACP in another thread, please start it.
Click to expand...

The NAACP, and what it did, are the proximate cause of the Breitbart post in question. It's very much on topic.

If you think his destruction of Sherrod is defensible, please tell me why?
Click to expand...

Well, to start with, I don't think Sherrod was destroyed (hell, she's a hero to the left now), and I don't think Breitbart is primarily responsible for the bad things that happened to her. He's not the one who fired her. If you want to get your panties in a bunch about that, the primary blame lies elsewhere. But it's inconvenient for you to look there, so you don't.
 
Ziggurat said:
Ahem...




Still waiting on that admission, Ben.
Click to expand...

If I were wrong I would admit it.

If you kill me, I suffer no more. As an atheist, I know that death is final. I will experience the next 100 billion years in the same way I experienced the ten billion before I was born; not at all. No regretting. No sadness. Oblivion.

If you destroy my career, and destroy my reputation, and I wind up living under a bridge and begging at a off-ramp for food money, you have harmed me WAY more than if you had put a gun to my head and ended my life.

If you maim me and I spend the rest of my life crapping into a bag, being fed through tubes, learning to talk by blinking my eyes because I have no jaw or tongue, you have hurt me WAY more than if you had simply killed me.

Death is primarily a harm to those who are left behind.
 
BenBurch said:
If I were wrong I would admit it.

If you kill me, I suffer no more. As an atheist, I know that death is final. I will experience the next 100 billion years in the same way I experienced the ten billion before I was born; not at all. No regretting. No sadness. Oblivion.

If you destroy my career, and destroy my reputation, and I wind up living under a bridge and begging at a off-ramp for food money, you have harmed me WAY more than if you had put a gun to my head and ended my life.

If you maim me and I spend the rest of my life crapping into a bag, being fed through tubes, learning to talk by blinking my eyes because I have no jaw or tongue, you have hurt me WAY more than if you had simply killed me.

Death is primarily a harm to those who are left behind.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and ask people whether they'd rather lose their job or their life. Tell me how many people actually answer with "life" and not "job". Because that's what happened to Sherrod. She's not vegetablized. She's not living off a feeding tube. She got fired!

And then ponder the fact that Mary Jo Kopeckne did leave people behind.

You're a real piece of work, Ben.
 
BenBurch said:
If I were wrong I would admit it.

If you kill me, I suffer no more. As an atheist, I know that death is final. I will experience the next 100 billion years in the same way I experienced the ten billion before I was born; not at all. No regretting. No sadness. Oblivion.

If you destroy my career, and destroy my reputation, and I wind up living under a bridge and begging at a off-ramp for food money, you have harmed me WAY more than if you had put a gun to my head and ended my life.

If you maim me and I spend the rest of my life crapping into a bag, being fed through tubes, learning to talk by blinking my eyes because I have no jaw or tongue, you have hurt me WAY more than if you had simply killed me.

Death is primarily a harm to those who are left behind.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
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