Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43

FredHayek wrote: Let's round up the usual suspects...
Acorn?
Anthony Wiener?
And that is just the "A"'s.

Anthony Weiner?

You think it might have been a lovers quarrel that went too far?

Breitbart on Ted Kennedy's passing...

Aug 26, 2009 on Twitter:

Andrew Breitbart wrote: Rest in Chappaquiddick.

Andrew Breitbart wrote: he was a f@#$er. a big ass motherf@#$er. this aint a 24-hour zone, baby. he was a bad, bad dude. & if mary jo were your kin youd be dancin'.

Andrew Breitbart wrote: This duplicitous bastard spit on GWB's face when he reached across party lines. Twas a grade school trick. Even til the end, he was a prick.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/ ... dy-twitter

Kate wrote: Breitbart on Ted Kennedy's passing...

Aug 26, 2009 on Twitter:

Andrew Breitbart wrote: Rest in Chappaquiddick.

Andrew Breitbart wrote: he was a f@#$er. a big ass motherf@#$er. this aint a 24-hour zone, baby. he was a bad, bad dude. & if mary jo were your kin youd be dancin'.

Andrew Breitbart wrote: This duplicitous bastard spit on GWB's face when he reached across party lines. Twas a grade school trick. Even til the end, he was a prick.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/ ... dy-twitter

And that makes it alright for someone on this thread to make snide remarks about his death? If you think so, your moral compass is busted too! (if you ever had one).

They all Hang together. LGOP

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: Breitbart on Ted Kennedy's passing...

Aug 26, 2009 on Twitter:

Andrew Breitbart wrote: Rest in Chappaquiddick.

Andrew Breitbart wrote: he was a f@#$er. a big ass motherf@#$er. this aint a 24-hour zone, baby. he was a bad, bad dude. & if mary jo were your kin youd be dancin'.

Andrew Breitbart wrote: This duplicitous bastard spit on GWB's face when he reached across party lines. Twas a grade school trick. Even til the end, he was a prick.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/ ... dy-twitter

And that makes it alright for someone on this thread to make snide remarks about his death? If you think so, your moral compass is busted too! (if you ever had one).

No, it does not make it acceptable to knock someone after they've died. My post is to show the true colors of Breitbart, who kicked others when they died. Let me ask, should we be respectful of a man who wrote those things less than 24 hours after Kennedy died?

Thanks for the insult. Stay classy, Twin.

The Hypocritical Windbag wrote: And that makes it alright for someone on this thread to make snide remarks about his death? If you think so, your moral compass is busted too! (if you ever had one).

But it was A-OK for you to snidely say "another one bites the dust" on the Whitney Houston thread?

Yes, the bullsh*t is getting deep round here.





Got's to go, the roads are getting slick and crowded. Be safe y'all.

This is a blog post from Reg Henry, a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The death of Andrew Breitbart — if dead he is, because it occurs to me that faking one's own death would be the ultimate prank for a prankster — strains the civilized notion that we speak no ill of the dead.

I believe in that simple decency, although Brietbart clearly did not. So in being generally critical of his life, I will stop short of calling him outright names but at the same time I won't heap praise on him. Those who do the latter, however, strike me as also offending some decent norm.

As the AP reported, Newt Gingrich tweeted: "Andrew Breitbart was the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America. He had great courage and creativity."

In praising him in these terms, Newt implicitly condones what he did. And what he did was throw away any concept of fairness .

That courage and creatively took the form of dishonestly pretending to people that he was somebody else and then taking his victims statements completely out of context with the sole purpose of damaging them.

If this was done to Newt Gingrich by a mainstream media representative, he would cry bloody murder. But for Breitbart's admirers like the ethically challenged Newt, it was all just a matter of whose ox (or donkey or elephant) was being gored.

This is what communications will have come down to when the last major newspaper goes out of business. You can say that the old guard journalists are biased and get up to their own dirty tricks — and you would be right in some cases. But those are sins that involve departing from accepted ethical standards.

But Andrew Breitbart was not a journalist. He was a propagandist and that business does not have scruples that are sometimes ignored. It has absolutely no scruples.

Welcome to the future.

Kate wrote: This is a blog post from Reg Henry, a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The death of Andrew Breitbart — if dead he is, because it occurs to me that faking one's own death would be the ultimate prank for a prankster — strains the civilized notion that we speak no ill of the dead.

I believe in that simple decency, although Brietbart clearly did not. So in being generally critical of his life, I will stop short of calling him outright names but at the same time I won't heap praise on him. Those who do the latter, however, strike me as also offending some decent norm.

As the AP reported, Newt Gingrich tweeted: "Andrew Breitbart was the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America. He had great courage and creativity."

In praising him in these terms, Newt implicitly condones what he did. And what he did was throw away any concept of fairness .

That courage and creatively took the form of dishonestly pretending to people that he was somebody else and then taking his victims statements completely out of context with the sole purpose of damaging them.

If this was done to Newt Gingrich by a mainstream media representative, he would cry bloody murder. But for Breitbart's admirers like the ethically challenged Newt, it was all just a matter of whose ox (or donkey or elephant) was being gored.

This is what communications will have come down to when the last major newspaper goes out of business. You can say that the old guard journalists are biased and get up to their own dirty tricks — and you would be right in some cases. But those are sins that involve departing from accepted ethical standards.

But Andrew Breitbart was not a journalist. He was a propagandist and that business does not have scruples that are sometimes ignored. It has absolutely no scruples.

Welcome to the future.

Thanks you for that. Proves my point about liberals.

Did ACORN deserve to be shut down? Yes
Did Weiner deserve to lose is job? Yes
Is Sherrod a racist? Yes

Well done Andrew, thanks for helping the cause.

People here just flat out refuse to educate themselves about what ACORN really did, then have the unmitigated audacity to call Sherrod a racist? My grandfather told me once "the moment you're startled by the idiocy of those around you is the moment you join their ranks". I should know better…

Anyway, Breitbart...rest in peace. You were a tremendous success, but who ever said it was difficult to manipulate fools?