Andrew Breitbart has died

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Running Man wrote:

So much for the tolerance of the left. God this forum is predictable.

It'll have more punch next time if you wait for more than just 2 posts!

That's a fair point, but the first thing that occurred to me when I heard the news is, the left majority on P&C is going to go "good, F him." And sure enough, the first comment was "F'ing A-hole." I'm not defending Breitbart, only been to his websites a few times, but this knee-jerk revelry to bad stuff happening to conservatives is predictable. Did anyone seriously expect to see something different here?

And yes, I'm sure right-leaning forums do the same when the situation is reversed.

We don't hate him because he was conservative, Running Man, we hate him because he was a fraud and a liar, and he did horrific damage with his lies.

Look at the Hitchens thread for a more nuanced reaction to a conservative death.

absurddoctor wrote:
Bear wrote:

“I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”
― Clarence Darrow

I believe that is the fabricated version, frequently attributed to Mark Twain, and the actual quote was "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.".

I'm pretty sure all of that is beside the point ;p

I'm pretty sure one of the rules of the internet (either before or after 34), is that if you quote something on the internet, eventually it will be attributed to Mark Twain.

As for Brietbart, never really paid any attention to him. 43 is quite young to pass out of existence for anyone.

Even so, tolerance is not a free pass from criticism. A quick and dirty definition of tolerance is "putting up with something." Considering there's a bit of a media storm about his death, I'd say he was at the very least, tolerated.

I can't believe you people are buying this; I won't believe he's dead until I see the long-form death certificate.

Malor, I disagree on Moore telling the truth. He both manipulates and lies.

I haven't seen him do that -- do you remember any examples? He manipulates like a motherf*cker, but I don't remember direct lies. And I certainly haven't seen him present fabricated evidence.

Not really relevant to this thread, but I'll point you toward http://www.nationalreview.com/articl.... Sometimes the line between lying and manipulating is blurry.

Moore takes it far enough that I don't think the distinction of whether he technically lies or not really matters in the context of this comparison.

NSMike wrote:

I'm pretty sure one of the rules of the internet (either before or after 34), is that if you quote something on the internet, eventually it will be attributed to Mark Twain.

Never expected to laugh out loud while reading an obit thread.

Trashie wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm pretty sure one of the rules of the internet (either before or after 34), is that if you quote something on the internet, eventually it will be attributed to Mark Twain.

Never expected to laugh out loud while reading an obit thread.

Or attributed to MLK.

Farscry wrote:

Moore takes it far enough that I don't think the distinction of whether he technically lies or not really matters in the context of this comparison.

Yeah, you're probably right.... past a certain point, it doesn't matter anymore.

And Quintin's right that we're offtopic, so back to Breitbart.

Running Man wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Running Man wrote:

So much for the tolerance of the left. God this forum is predictable.

It'll have more punch next time if you wait for more than just 2 posts!

That's a fair point, but the first thing that occurred to me when I heard the news is, the left majority on P&C is going to go "good, F him." And sure enough, the first comment was "F'ing A-hole." I'm not defending Breitbart, only been to his websites a few times, but this knee-jerk revelry to bad stuff happening to conservatives is predictable. Did anyone seriously expect to see something different here?

And yes, I'm sure right-leaning forums do the same when the situation is reversed.

I dunno, with the exception of maybe two posts on this forum, I think people have been respectfully fair. I don't believe in the axiom that you simply cannot speak ill of the dead, but I know a great many people who adhere to it simply to help generate some self-righteous indignation and wag their finger imperiously. The man made his career being horrible to other human beings. Are we not allowed to point that out as a matter of fact when he died? No one is making "dance in the streets" type posts here yet.

Are they thinking it privately? Probably. But let's not pretend this thread is some mashup of text chest-bumps because someone died.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I can't believe you people are buying this; I won't believe he's dead until I see the long-form death certificate.

IMAGE(http://gifs.gifbin.com/1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif)

Quintin_Stone wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

The Kennedy thing is an apples to oranges comparison anyway Jayhawker, unless Breitbart killed someone and tried to get away with it.

What's the minimum criminal, moral, or ethical infraction it takes before someone is allowed to insult your memory post-mortem?

Obviously it's not a hard line, but it's certainly easier to make that case when it comes to negligent homicide.

I mean what this guy did boils down to partisan d-baggery writ large, that's true - but I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to cast stones

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

The Kennedy thing is an apples to oranges comparison anyway Jayhawker, unless Breitbart killed someone and tried to get away with it.

What's the minimum criminal, moral, or ethical infraction it takes before someone is allowed to insult your memory post-mortem?

Obviously it's not a hard line, but it's certainly easier to make that case when it comes to negligent homicide.

I mean what this guy did boils down to partisan d-baggery writ large, that's true - but I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to cast stones

That's true, Norman. I mean who among us hasn't commissioned false documentaries to blemish organizations that help people vote? Who among us hasn't scurrilously attempted to destroy a woman's career to gin up some racist hatred?

Noah Shachtman of Wired has a nicely humanizing article on Breitbart:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...

Back then, Breitbart was at the center of a remarkable journalistic scene in Los Angeles, where every reporter — left-wing and right, two-bit porno-bloggers and high-powered Los Angeles Times columnists — all had a place. Zany, self-depreciating, unkempt, potty-mouthed and magnetic, Breitbart was impossible to dislike. He could talk to anybody, and he did. He loved cheesy ’80s music in inverse proportion to the bands’ quality. His poker playing was charmingly abysmal. His wife and enormous brood of kids were radiant. He saw himself as a high school nerd, about to wreak vengeance on the press’s popular kids with his new media plays. I felt not dissimilarly, at the time. We cemented a friendship there, even if it meant occasionally enduring some rant about Al Sharpton. It was one of the happiest periods of my life.
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

What's the minimum criminal, moral, or ethical infraction it takes before someone is allowed to insult your memory post-mortem?

Obviously it's not a hard line, but it's certainly easier to make that case when it comes to negligent homicide.

I mean what this guy did boils down to partisan d-baggery writ large, that's true - but I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to cast stones

I'll take that Pepsi challenge.

Unrelatedly, I'm guessing that we'll never know who you thought was high-fiving in this thread?

Running Man wrote:

That's a fair point, but the first thing that occurred to me when I heard the news is, the left majority on P&C is going to go "good, F him." And sure enough, the first comment was "F'ing A-hole."

This says a lot more about you than it does me.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I can't believe you people are buying this; I won't believe he's dead until I see the long-form death certificate.

Yeah, I don't buy this for a minute. It'll end up being some expose about "death panels".

Tanglebones wrote:

That's true, Norman. I mean who among us hasn't commissioned false documentaries to blemish organizations that help people vote? Who among us hasn't scurrilously attempted to destroy a woman's career to gin up some racist hatred?

Heh, it's like that Simpson's episode with the elephant. "And, like most people, I've run a little ivory..."

Dimmerswitch wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

What's the minimum criminal, moral, or ethical infraction it takes before someone is allowed to insult your memory post-mortem?

Obviously it's not a hard line, but it's certainly easier to make that case when it comes to negligent homicide.

I mean what this guy did boils down to partisan d-baggery writ large, that's true - but I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to cast stones

I'll take that Pepsi challenge.

Unrelatedly, I'm guessing that we'll never know who you thought was high-fiving in this thread?

Dimmerswitch wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

What's the minimum criminal, moral, or ethical infraction it takes before someone is allowed to insult your memory post-mortem?

Obviously it's not a hard line, but it's certainly easier to make that case when it comes to negligent homicide.

I mean what this guy did boils down to partisan d-baggery writ large, that's true - but I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to cast stones

I'll take that Pepsi challenge.

Unrelatedly, I'm guessing that we'll never know who you thought was high-fiving in this thread?

o/

cube wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

What's the minimum criminal, moral, or ethical infraction it takes before someone is allowed to insult your memory post-mortem?

Obviously it's not a hard line, but it's certainly easier to make that case when it comes to negligent homicide.

I mean what this guy did boils down to partisan d-baggery writ large, that's true - but I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to cast stones

I'll take that Pepsi challenge.

Unrelatedly, I'm guessing that we'll never know who you thought was high-fiving in this thread?

o/

\o

On one level I certainly do hope he found peace in death that he could not find here on earth.

He had an uncanny drive to put his needs ahead of those around him and then displayed desperation to share it with the country and bask in the disdain of his foes, again on a national level.

To me, that is not a sign of a healthy and happy individual, hence my first statement. Everyone wants to be heard. It isn't healthy expectations to vocally collar a nation of hundreds of millions.

He's quite worthy of a patented The Bugle f*ckeulogy.

OG_slinger wrote:

He's quite worthy of a patented The Bugle f*ckeulogy.

Speaking of which, are they back? Or are they still on hiatus after the Guardian axed them?

I generally don't don the ashes and sackcloth for frauds, hatemongers, traitors and saboteurs of the democratic process. Not particularly glad he's dead, but I sure as hell am not sad he's gone.

edit: worthless post with sp's edit!

Tanglebones wrote:

Speaking of which, are they back? Or are they still on hiatus after the Guardian axed them?

They're back. Rolled right from The Guardian to doing it themselves. You can find them on SoundCloud and iTunes.

I'm getting the feeling it'll be difficult to convince someone out west to piss on his grave on my behalf.