• 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

From his speeches he clearly felt he was fighting the good fight against those who use similar tactics.

Neither side should. Examples of "the other side" setting people up or taking things out of context available upon request.
 
Neally said:
Let's see, brother of the founder is an embezzler within the organization...
Click to expand...
How does that prove management was involved in voter fraud or that any of the other leaders corrupt? Hint, it doesn't.

...the executives of the organization attempt a coverup and fire people that want to know the truth, managers and low level employees are found to have committing voter registration fraud.
Click to expand...
Source? Were there convictions?

New York Communities for Change (NYCC) staffers reportedly collected money door-to-door for the group’s campaign to test schools for dangerous toxins and then commingled those funds with cash raised for a teachers union and to support Occupy Wall Street.To cover up the funding funny business, NYCC executive director Jon Kest has reportedly threatened and fired employees, destroyed documentary evidence, ordered staffers not to speak to the media, and ordered the installation of surveillance cameras and recording devices at NYCC headquarters in Brooklyn. NYCC is also reportedly destroying items that reference ACORN in an effort to cover up NYCC’s intimate working relationship with the ACORN network.
Click to expand...
"Reportedly"? Proof that this is systemic corruption?

In Nevada, ACORN pleaded guilty to one felony count of unlawful compensation for registration of voters, stemming from an illegal voter registration scheme in its Las Vegas office during in the 2008 race. The group paid a bonus to workers to sign up 21 or more voters per shift, calling the program "21," or "Blackjack." It is illegal in Nevada to pay bonuses to register voters.
Click to expand...
One count proves systemic corruption? Don't most large organizations have some number of people who break the law. Isn't that a statistical probability?

Yep, handwave away all of the above, just like your fellow ideologues.
Click to expand...
NO! That is not okay to claim. I've addressed your points and made valid ones of my own that you refuse to address. That's bad form.

In fact that I have repeatedly said that if any organization displays the same pattern of corruption and fraud, then yes, they too can be seen as corrupt.
Click to expand...
That is NOT my argument. Jesus H. Christ. Do you even read what I right? You are engaging in straw man. No where did even come close to making a tu quoque argument.

Whether those other organizations do in fact have a similar history of fraud and corruption is something I'm not going to get into since this isn't about them. Open another thread and discuss it there.
Click to expand...
They DON'T have a similar history! That's the point. Please, for the love of all that is decent. At least make an attempt to understand what my argument is. I keep repeating it and you keep getting it wrong.

  • There IS hard evidence for systemic corruption in the Murdoch organization.
  • There is NO hard evidence for systemic corruption in ACORN.
I can live with disagreement. I can't abide someone claiming that I'm saying things I'm not. Please don't do that.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
In Nevada, ACORN pleaded guilty to one felony count of unlawful compensation for registration of voters, stemming from an illegal voter registration scheme in its Las Vegas office during in the 2008 race. The group paid a bonus to workers to sign up 21 or more voters per shift, calling the program "21," or "Blackjack." It is illegal in Nevada to pay bonuses to register voters. Um, well this management was independent of the other real management. Nothing to worry about. Move along.
Click to expand...
Like it was a major felony, comparable to what the republicon slimeballs did elsewhere when they filled out voter registration cards for people and then destroyed the ones that they got from Democrats.

There was no attempt to register fake voters on the part of ACORN. Stop saying that there was.

Yep, handwave away all of the above, just like your fellow ideologues.
Click to expand...
Excuse me if I am underwhelmed by this tongue-lashing from someone who appears to think that the sludge monster was a decent human being and a competent, ethical investigator.
 
RandFan said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Already given. Obviously you haven't bothered to read them, which is exactly why I'm done trying to feed you evidence when you are so obviously married to your position that it hasn't and won't make a bit of difference regardless of what evidence is presented.


leftysergeant said:
Like it was a major felony, comparable to what the republicon slimeballs did elsewhere when they filled out voter registration cards for people and then destroyed the ones that they got from Democrats.
Click to expand...
Predictably, you attempt to dismiss anything negative regarding anything on the left by comparing it to something on the right.
 
Neally said:
Already given. Obviously you haven't bothered to read them, which is exactly why I'm done trying to feed you evidence when you are so obviously married to your position that it hasn't and won't make a bit of difference regardless of what evidence is presented.
Click to expand...
Project much?

  • I've made an honest attempt to address each of your points.
  • You gave me a long list of accusations.
  • If that was your source I didn't see it.
  • You have utterly failed to address ANY of my points.
So, fine, run away, but don't you dare tell others that I'm "married" to my position. I came here a staunch conservative and I admit I'm wrong at least monthly. I apologized to someone two days ago for being wrong. If you had emails or witness testimony that there was systemic corruption (like Murdoch) I'd be glad to admit I was wrong. The problem is that your evidence is flimsy and doesn't show what you think it does. Further it raises the question as to why there is no hard evidence?

Go look in the mirror, the one who is so entrenched in his position is the one who won't even address points and arguments made and who falsely characterizes arguments.

That's you.
 
Last edited:
I think we're running the risk of losing the focus of this thread, which I think should be centered on the fact that Breitbart was a scumbag.
 
a race to the bottom

Beerina said:
From his speeches he clearly felt he was fighting the good fight against those who use similar tactics.

Neither side should. Examples of "the other side" setting people up or taking things out of context available upon request.
Click to expand...

That was Michael Gerson's point also: "The result is more than a race to the murky journalistic bottom. It is the triumph of a thoroughly postmodern view of politics: Power means everything. Truth means little. Ethical standards are for the weak and compromised. Influence is gained, not by persuasion, but by deception and ruthlessness.

This escalation is really a descent."
 
Beery said:
I think we're running the risk of losing the focus of this thread, which I think should be centered on the fact that Breitbart was a scumbag.
Click to expand...

No, we're losing focus on the fact that he's dead. If you want to claim he was a "scumbag," offer evidence of it, as others have done.
 
Roadtoad said:
No, we're losing focus on the fact that he's dead. If you want to claim he was a "scumbag," offer evidence of it, as others have done.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that Brietbart played a pretty central role in quickening the drift of people from traditional media including cable and satellite news, to online news.

Yes, from the liberal point of view, I guess in some twisted world view, that makes him a scumbag.

A more rational question would be what part exactly did he play in the US political events of 2008-2012.

Yes, it was a Rovian method.

One thing I'm really laughing about is that he was gay, so if (or when) he was on the left, he was or would have been a hallowed saint.

But on the conservative side? Why, that doesn't fit into the narrative, so it has to be nicely omitted.

Vicious haters of the left, seen as they really truly are.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
I'm pretty sure that Brietbart played a pretty central role in quickening the drift of people from traditional media including cable and satellite news, to online news.

Yes, from the liberal point of view, I guess in some twisted world view, that makes him a scumbag.

A more rational question would be what part exactly did he play in the US political events of 2008-2012.

Yes, it was a Rovian method.

One thing I'm really laughing about is that he was gay, so if (or when) he was on the left, he was or would have been a hallowed saint.

But on the conservative side? Why, that doesn't fit into the narrative, so it has to be nicely omitted.

Vicious haters of the left, seen as they really truly are.
Click to expand...

The drift occurred as noted by Marshall McLuhan because "the medium is the message."

Your rational question is more than valid, and requires further discussion, just not here. But whether he was gay, straight, or on the left, his methodology was just plain wrong.

And I would have been opposed to it, just as I have been with others.

Peas, out.
 
mhaze said:
I'm pretty sure that Brietbart played a pretty central role in quickening the drift of people from traditional media including cable and satellite news, to online news.

Yes, from the liberal point of view, I guess in some twisted world view, that makes him a scumbag.

A more rational question would be what part exactly did he play in the US political events of 2008-2012.

Yes, it was a Rovian method.

One thing I'm really laughing about is that he was gay, so if (or when) he was on the left, he was or would have been a hallowed saint.

But on the conservative side? Why, that doesn't fit into the narrative, so it has to be nicely omitted.

Vicious haters of the left, seen as they really truly are.
Click to expand...

Breitbart wasnt gay. Not that would make a damn bit of difference. Does explain it being "nicely omitted" though.
 
Last edited:
The response from Little Green Footballs...

We were friends once, but that ended when I could no longer stomach the right wing extremism that Andrew chose instead to embrace. I’m a bit sad that he won’t be ranting any more on Twitter about my “magic ponytail,” but some of his other, more venomous insults I must confess I won’t miss at all.
Click to expand...

It's odd that most of the people on the Left are far classier in their eulogies of Breitbart than he ever was of anyone on the Left.
 
mhaze said:
One thing I'm really laughing about is that he was gay, so if (or when) he was on the left, he was or would have been a hallowed saint.
Click to expand...

That's the first I've heard of him being gay. I know that he was very accepting of gays (which also didn't fit with the typical stereotype of conservatives), but are you sure you're not getting something confused here?
 
Ziggurat said:
That's the first I've heard of him being gay. I know that he was very accepting of gays (which also didn't fit with the typical stereotype of conservatives), but are you sure you're not getting something confused here?
Click to expand...

Sure to be a surprise to his widow and four kids.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is what you're holding up as an example of classiness? Sure, it's far from the worst, but you really could do much better for an example of class.
Click to expand...

Contentwise I see not much of a difference. The latter just clothes its criticism in less primary colours... ;)
 
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