Andrew Breitbart dead

[quote name='dohdough']What about those networks and what about mediamatters? I'm not going to take your word for just because you say so and especially since I know better.

But before you move on to this stuff, how about you backtrack and address my other points first?[/QUOTE]

No, I don't have to do anything actually, but since you wanna be a little bitch, I'll address them after I get OFF of work.

You know? 9-5? Paycheck...no weekly check from big brutha gubament.:lol:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']One good turn deserves another...



And that was someone who, despite having a questionable past, at least attempted to help people's lives, Breitbart on the other hand only destroyed people and organizations...[/QUOTE]

While I've no interest in defending those comments and I fully admit to not knowing everything he said, even the most simple of you (royal) folks have *got* to recognize the difference between "He was a bad person." and "I'm glad he's dead."

One is a statement of preference.
One is celebrating in the suffering of others.

Obviously, you're free to do as you wish.
 
[quote name='SgtMurder']No, I don't have to do anything actually, but since you wanna be a little bitch, I'll address them after I get OFF of work.

You know? 9-5? Paycheck...no weekly check from big brutha gubament.:lol:[/QUOTE]
Says the bitch that's tap dancing around my points because he doesn't have the knowledge or intellect to counter. You could have easily addressed them while insulting me.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I've no interest in defending those comments and I fully admit to not knowing everything he said, even the most simple of you (royal) folks have *got* to recognize the difference between "He was a bad person." and "I'm glad he's dead."

One is a statement of preference.
One is celebrating in the suffering of others.

Obviously, you're free to do as you wish.[/QUOTE]

I understand the difference. I'm glad he is dead. The world is better off.
 
[quote name='SgtMurder']No, I don't have to do anything actually, but since you wanna be a little bitch, I'll address them after I get OFF of work.

You know? 9-5? Paycheck...no weekly check from big brutha gubament.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Where do you work?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I've no interest in defending those comments and I fully admit to not knowing everything he said, even the most simple of you (royal) folks have *got* to recognize the difference between "He was a bad person." and "I'm glad he's dead."

One is a statement of preference.
One is celebrating in the suffering of others.

Obviously, you're free to do as you wish.[/QUOTE]

No way, dude. Why you gotta put words in people's mouths.

They were all saying "I'm glad he's dead" because they're happy that he's no longer suffering. You know, like people say about their terminally ill family members when they pass.

Breitbart was like a drunk, maniacal, abusive uncle to us. So we're glad he's no longer suffering. That's all we're saying.
 
They are now playing his "best hits" and his rants are filled with this directionless, apoplectic rage.


Breitbart is a tragic figure in the same sense as Joe McCarthy or Darth Vader. Men that were so filled with hatred that it consumed them and caused their death way before their time.
 
I prefer my trolls to proudly wear their credentials. None of the pussyfooting around and then whining to the mods.

Also, the CAG libs are for the most part professionals with a few college professors (I myself have a cushy job with a fortune 100 company) but the CAG cons (with the exception of 1 or 2 might-be doctors) seem to all be wage slaves who don't even make 10 dollars an hour.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Maybe you should learn more about him and see how he feels about condemning a corpse.[/QUOTE]

Somebody obviously knows something more than he lets on.

Who's that?

This Guy
< < <

And what can I say mykevernin, my top hat and curly mustache can't be contained to one username.
 
Surprised there isn't more talk about the college video of Obama with some of the Weather Underground people that Breitbart said he was going to release March 1... the same day he happened to die.
 
Breitbart was about to launch a new website...they're saving the Obama college video for the new website to try to get more traffic on the new website.

Whatevers in that video probably won't persuade anyone. Arguments were made and people made up their mind in 2008, I think.

[quote name='UncleBob']While I've no interest in defending those comments and I fully admit to not knowing everything he said, even the most simple of you (royal) folks have *got* to recognize the difference between "He was a bad person." and "I'm glad he's dead."

One is a statement of preference.
One is celebrating in the suffering of others.

Obviously, you're free to do as you wish.[/QUOTE]

Which one reflects your opinion?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Somebody obviously knows something more than he lets on.

Who's that?

This Guy
< < <

And what can I say mykevernin, my top hat and curly mustache can't be contained to one username.[/QUOTE]
So you admit to lying to score a cheap point...got it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yeah, you were. Apparently not pretending to be sad at the demise of a deranged liar is just as bad as being a deranged liar.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you're saying here. I'm neither glad nor sad that he is dead.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Surprised there isn't more talk about the college video of Obama with some of the Weather Underground people that Breitbart said he was going to release March 1... the same day he happened to die.[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that Breitbart was ordered killed by Obama?
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/on-making-yourself-right/253889/[/QUOTE]

I think that's a very fair article.

I was astounded at the "Behave yourself" video - especially because his side has essentially won the latest battle. The hippy protests are getting split up by cops. The rich are winning big. If Obama wins the rich enjoy a modest tax cut, if Romney wins they get a big one. Wall Street will never have to pay back the money it gutted from our economy, instead main street will suffer.

So why does a man who is winning start screaming at a bunch of powerless hippies. Screaming like a madman. There must have been a soul buried under all the layers of hate and self-deceit. A soul that knew if there is an afterlife, he isn't going to the good place...
 
Well, people don't become alcoholics because they're really, really, really satisfied with themselves, their lives, and their work...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you suggesting that Breitbart was ordered killed by Obama?[/QUOTE]

I'm not suggesting anything, but there are always lots of conspiracy theories running around the Internet. I was just surprised no one on either side had brought it up.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think that's a very fair article.

I was astounded at the "Behave yourself" video - especially because his side has essentially won the latest battle. The hippy protests are getting split up by cops. The rich are winning big. If Obama wins the rich enjoy a modest tax cut, if Romney wins they get a big one. Wall Street will never have to pay back the money it gutted from our economy, instead main street will suffer.

So why does a man who is winning start screaming at a bunch of powerless hippies. Screaming like a madman. There must have been a soul buried under all the layers of hate and self-deceit. A soul that knew if there is an afterlife, he isn't going to the good place...[/QUOTE]
Taibbi had a good one too. Too bad some crazy righties took it a little too seriously and started threatening him and his family.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301

A person like Breitbart doesn't just go to those lengths just because of ideology. He probably had some really deep psychological issues. He was known to hit the bottle pretty hard and I doubt that was the only thing.
 
Looks like the autopsy has been done.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...sy-results-deferred-pending-toxicology-tests/

Pathologists are notoriously slow getting their reports together. They mentioned that they are waiting for toxicology and histopathology, which is reasonable. However, most sudden causes of death would be seen on a gross examination: e.g., a huge dilated heart from alcoholic cardiomyopathy that could have lead to an arrhythmia, coronary artery thrombus leading to a STEMI and arrhythmia, large pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you suggesting that Breitbart was ordered killed by Obama?[/QUOTE]

I don't believe this to be the case, but it's not as if Obama hasn't ordered the death of an American citizen before...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't believe this to be the case, but it's not as if Obama hasn't ordered the death of an American citizen before...[/QUOTE]
Very nice.

The erosion of civil liberties is supported by the right and the left. I'm not an Obama supporter anymore because I cannot follow his administration down that road.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Very nice.

The erosion of civil liberties is supported by the right and the left. I'm not an Obama supporter anymore because I cannot follow his administration down that road.[/QUOTE]

And you supported him before?? He never supported neo-feudalism like you do.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't believe this to be the case, but it's not as if Obama hasn't ordered the death of an American citizen before...[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christ, you are a sleaze.

Do remind me who this other person was, as I only vaguely recall.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Jesus Christ, you are a sleaze.

Do remind me who this other person was, as I only vaguely recall.[/QUOTE]

Smear al-alwaki
 
Just watched Real Time. Looks like Maher didn't really have anything to say about Breitbart. That was an interesting way to go considering his other obits. I don't really buy his bit about not speaking ill of the dead because he's done it before, but a lack of mention would probably offend Breitbart more considering how many times he's been a guest, not to mention an attention whore.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Just watched Real Time. Looks like Maher didn't really have anything to say about Breitbart. That was an interesting way to go considering his other obits. I don't really buy his bit about not speaking ill of the dead because he's done it before, but a lack of mention would probably offend Breitbart more considering how many times he's been a guest, not to mention an attention whore.[/QUOTE]

He was just good for the moment. Noone will remember him in a month.

Therefore you're right - ignoring him now is about the worst thing Maher could do.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And you supported him before??[/QUOTE]
I voted for him. I actually thought he would end the Iraq war when he promised. My mistake. He ended up ending it on the Bush timeline.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Do remind me who this other person was, as I only vaguely recall.[/QUOTE]You might have remembered him more clearly had there been a trial.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I voted for him. I actually thought he would end the Iraq war when he promised. My mistake. He ended up ending it on the Bush timeline.[/QUOTE]
Is this a serious answer? Cause it sounds like a fucking joke to me.

How the hell was Obama supposed to end the war "when he promised," when more than half of the legislature was obstructing everything he and his political ilk proposed?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Is this a serious answer? Cause it sounds like a fucking joke to me.

How the hell was Obama supposed to end the war "when he promised," when more than half of the legislature was obstructing everything he and his political ilk proposed?[/QUOTE]
He's the commander-in-chief.
 
[quote name='Spokker']He's the commander-in-chief.[/QUOTE]
Commander-in-Chief is not a military dictator, king, OR emperor. Would it kill you to have any substance in your posts?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Commander-in-Chief is not a military dictator, king, OR emperor. Would it kill you to have any substance in your posts?[/QUOTE]
He and the democrats enjoyed a majority early in his term. I would have tackled the Iraq War a little sooner than the Lilly Ledbetter thing, which had little effect on wage inequality.
 
[quote name='Spokker']He and the democrats enjoyed a majority early in his term. I would have tackled the Iraq War a little sooner than the Lilly Ledbetter thing, which had little effect on wage inequality.[/QUOTE]
The majority was not filibuster proof and don't even pretend that you're concerned about wage inequity.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Commander-in-Chief is not a military dictator, king, OR emperor. Would it kill you to have any substance in your posts?[/QUOTE]

We didn't leave (well, kind of leave, at least) Iraq under Congressional action, and since the president has the authority to wage war for at least 60 days before any semblance of action from Congress is decreed as the law, and since the president, as commander in chief, has the authority of troop positioning and so forth during times of war (however undeclared these wars are), it stands to reason that Congressional action is unnecessary in order to remove forces from abroad and restation them at home.

If Congress then decides to declare war in an attempt to keep the wars going? Veto. Doesn't want to veto? Dude's commander in chief, he gets final say on what goes on. If he fancies the power to send troops into Libya, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere without a Congressional declaration of war, there's nothing but lack of will that stops him from doing the reverse.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']We didn't leave (well, kind of leave, at least) Iraq under Congressional action, and since the president has the authority to wage war for at least 60 days before any semblance of action from Congress is decreed as the law, and since the president, as commander in chief, has the authority of troop positioning and so forth during times of war (however undeclared these wars are), it stands to reason that Congressional action is unnecessary in order to remove forces from abroad and restation them at home.

If Congress then decides to declare war in an attempt to keep the wars going? Veto. Doesn't want to veto? Dude's commander in chief, he gets final say on what goes on. If he fancies the power to send troops into Libya, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere without a Congressional declaration of war, there's nothing but lack of will that stops him from doing the reverse.[/QUOTE]
Fancies and lack of will??? How is that a serious answer? Since when do decisions happen in a vacuum?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Fancies and lack of will??? How is that a serious answer? Since when do decisions happen in a vacuum?[/QUOTE]

Obama is the decider now, not Bush.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The majority was not filibuster proof and don't even pretend that you're concerned about wage inequity.[/QUOTE]
I'm not concerned about it because it does not exist.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Fancies and lack of will??? How is that a serious answer? Since when do decisions happen in a vacuum?[/QUOTE]He made a campaign promise to bring the troops home by sometime in 2009. He was then elected by the American people. Therefore, he had a mandate to deliver on his campaign promises, such as bringing the troops home. Had he unilaterally brought the troops home by the promised date without the support of Congress, it is likely that there would be outcry by some but no real consequences.

By failing to do that, he loses his mandate and risks losing his support from, at the very least, anti-war independents. Not only that, he failed to close Guantanamo Bay, and then signed a document that gives him the power to send American citizens there without trial.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm not concerned about it because it does not exist.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Spokker']He made a campaign promise to bring the troops home by sometime in 2009. He was then elected by the American people. Therefore, he had a mandate to deliver on his campaign promises, such as bringing the troops home. Had he unilaterally brought the troops home by the promised date without the support of Congress, it is likely that there would be outcry by some but no real consequences.

By failing to do that, he loses his mandate and risks losing his support from, at the very least, anti-war independents. Not only that, he failed to close Guantanamo Bay, and then signed a document that gives him the power to send American citizens there without trial.[/QUOTE]
So you agree that your mention of having a Democratic majority is irrelevant in the face of Republican obstructionism? Did you somehow go deaf and blind when the right was hammering him hard about looking like we surrendered, emboldened more violence in the Middle East by setting a date, NIMBY on Guantanamo, and more cries of socialism among other right-wing harping?

AND SINCE WHEN DO DECISIONS HAPPEN IN A VACUUM?
 
[quote name='Spokker']He made a campaign promise to bring the troops home by sometime in 2009. He was then elected by the American people. Therefore, he had a mandate to deliver on his campaign promises, such as bringing the troops home. Had he unilaterally brought the troops home by the promised date without the support of Congress, it is likely that there would be outcry by some but no real consequences.

By failing to do that, he loses his mandate and risks losing his support from, at the very least, anti-war independents. Not only that, he failed to close Guantanamo Bay, and then signed a document that gives him the power to send American citizens there without trial.[/QUOTE]

...not to mention, we attacked Libya without Congressional approval...

But, in the Red vs. Blue mentality, that's OK because one of their guys did it. ;)
 
[quote name='BigT']...not to mention, we attacked Libya without Congressional approval...

But, in the Red vs. Blue mentality, that's OK because one of their guys did it. ;)[/QUOTE]
False equivalence. Obama didn't order a full scale military mobilization based on fabricated evidence and NATO isn't the United States. Try again.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tell me more.[/QUOTE]
On a macro scale, there is very little or zero wage gap when one factors in all relevant variables such as education, experience, hours worked, risk of injury or death on the job, choice of major, etc. I mean, damn, over 90% of fatal work-related accidents happen to men. Women are not expected to work those jobs. They generally do not.

In some industries, there is a wage gap in which women benefit. Women also tend to take more sick days than men. Like most workers, women are generally paid what they are worth.

There will be individual cases here and there where there is a legitimate wage discrimination issue in which a company acted poorly, and that's what Ledbetter was all about. Women can go to court and challenge these companies for back pay. But the Ledbetter legislation can only help when there is a legitimate case, and the majority of the wage gap has to do with the variables I mentioned above.

I predict the raw wage gap will decrease as women earn higher levels of education and after decades these women will have as much experience as the average male worker. After all, the majority of college students are women. At that point I guess it will depend on what they majored in.

A good overview of the wage gap is this book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-...2109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330917849&sr=8-1

He was a guest on the Tom Leykis Show if you'd rather have an audio explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHeLOdFC0w0
 
[quote name='dohdough']Did you somehow go deaf and blind when the right was hammering him hard about looking like we surrendered, emboldened more violence in the Middle East by setting a date, NIMBY on Guantanamo, and more cries of socialism among other right-wing harping?
[/QUOTE]The Republicans were the least of his problems. In June of 2009, only 30 of 256 Democrats in the House voted against spending another $100 billion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The truth of the matter is that they are not the anti-war party. That is a myth. Republicans and Democrats both want war. Obama took advantage of war fatigue among the American people and promised them something he could not deliver.

My answer to the headline of this news article is a strong yes: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/03/21/do-anti-war-democrats-feel-duped/
 
Wank wank.

Find me some real studies, not some pulp social science.

I could C&P the link to Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve" and say that Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, ceteris paribus. Maybe I could even find a radio program they were interviewed on. Murray certainly, as he just published another book that's garnered him a lot of praise amongst people who like their social science boiling over with confirmatory bias and lacking in any discussion of competing explanations for phenomena.

But that doesn't change that Bell Curve was roundly, sorely rebuked - it sold a number of copies (and still does), but it's still an academic laughing stock.

And, come on. Someone who has to promote themselves by saying they're on "Who's Who in America" is a wanking fucker. You know why I'm not on "Who's Who in America"? Because I didn't want to pay them for the initiation fee. It's a scam, a sham, and virtually anyone with a Ph.D. gets an invite to that.

I should update my CV to indicate that I belong to "Columbia House" if that's any indication.

Go find me some academic research supporting this confirmatory bias golddigger's thesis. Shouldn't be hard if it's true.
 
[quote name='Spokker']On a macro scale, there is very little or zero wage gap when one factors in all relevant variables such as education, experience, hours worked, risk of injury or death on the job, choice of major, etc. I mean, damn, over 90% of fatal work-related accidents happen to men. Women are not expected to work those jobs. They generally do not.

In some industries, there is a wage gap in which women benefit. Women also tend to take more sick days than men. Like most workers, women are generally paid what they are worth.

There will be individual cases here and there where there is a legitimate wage discrimination issue in which a company acted poorly, and that's what Ledbetter was all about. Women can go to court and challenge these companies for back pay. But the Ledbetter legislation can only help when there is a legitimate case, and the majority of the wage gap has to do with the variables I mentioned above.

I predict the raw wage gap will decrease as women earn higher levels of education and after decades these women will have as much experience as the average male worker. After all, the majority of college students are women. At that point I guess it will depend on what they majored in.

A good overview of the wage gap is this book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-...2109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330917849&sr=8-1

He was a guest on the Tom Leykis Show if you'd rather have an audio explanation: [/QUOTE]
Is it so hard for you to make your own goddamn arguments or summarize others instead of posting your insipid links?

The wage gap isn't just about a matter of pay inequality, but social contructions of gender roles steeped in patriarchy. Considering you depth of knowledge, you probably think that girls just "naturally" like dolls and "girl" stuff and boys "naturally" like to play war and "boy" stuff.

[quote name='Spokker']The Republicans were the least of his problems. In June of 2009, only 30 of 256 Democrats in the House voted against spending another $100 billion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The truth of the matter is that they are not the anti-war party. That is a myth. Republicans and Democrats both want war. Obama took advantage of war fatigue among the American people and promised them something he could not deliver.

My answer to the headline of this news article is a strong yes: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/03/21/do-anti-war-democrats-feel-duped/[/QUOTE]
So what was the fucking point of mentioning a Democratic majority then?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Someone who has to promote themselves by saying they're on "Who's Who in America" is a wanking fucker

...

Go find me some academic research supporting this confirmatory bias golddigger's thesis. [/QUOTE]
You sound a bit like Rush Limbaugh with that vitriol.

In any case, I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment. I did such work in the past and was compensated.

[quote name='dohdough']
So what was the fucking point of mentioning a Democratic majority then?[/QUOTE]
To point out that the Democratic party is not the anti-war party. When they are in power, they will continue to wage war. This includes Democratic Congressmen and the president. Anti-war campaign promises should not be believed. You cannot be anti-war and continue to participate in the two-party system. Some third-party candidates who are anti-war may emerge. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top