Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43
 

*shrug*

He doesn't look too healthy at 43 in that photo.

43 is frigging young.

This is one funeral I wouldn't mind seeing the Westboro Baptists attend. And then they can all jump in the grave and we could be rid of a large percentage of the hatred in this world.

See, it isn't just the good that die young.

Natural causes at 43?

Natural. Misused and abused word.

Sure, a heart attack is natural, a massive stroke is natural, spontaneous human combustion is natural, ingesting hemlock is natural, mauled by a bear is natural...

But when they say natural causes one thinks of old age, your body just aged out and gave up.

So, what did he really die of?

According to most of the comments on the WND web site, President Obama had him killed.

Started half a dozen nasty posts ...
This is best outcome. :neutral:

There are some crazy posts here

AIDS is natural, too.:D

To add to infinte shawnee's analysis: It's natural to die after you've been poisoned or shot repeatedly.

It would be unnatural to live forever.

I wonder what percentage of all the people who ever lived are still living today.

There was a BBC thing recently - let me see if I can find it.

This isn't what I was looking for but it's a start.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00n6z6s

or...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579

He doesn't look a day over 55.

To quote from my favorite movie, "The Lion In Winter" "I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.".

Andrew Breitbart was a big fan of the Chameleons.

About this matter he was absolutely correct. The Chameleons were remarkable band that should gotten more attention.



He was a rather unique personality. He truly enjoyed going into the lion's den and getting his share of in-person vilification. I find that aspect fascinating. How many of us would wander into a convention of our political enemies just for the sport of it? This is something he did regularly.

Sometimes on rollerblades.

As someone who through both politics and identity feels literally unsafe leaving certain liberal areas of the country, and feels unsafe even visiting my parents in socially conservative and fiercely authoritarian china, I immensely respect the way he could take the fight to "us" (though I would say that liberals are overall better at being accepting of and civil to those we disagree with... Cause we don't HATE them), and don't celebrate the deaths of political enemies... the guy was a total CUNT.

Ibs, please read the comments here and tell me that you still believe what you just said.

Nick Gillespie via CNN

oops. guy's dead and the hatred is still here.

A live dick becoming dead, is still a dick.

I was oblivious to the guy, but every article I read about him in the last day has mentioned in the first paragraph that he loved the good fight or he was a fighter or he was pugnacious. (Depending on who was being quoted.)

Sound like he was deliberately an asshole, always looking for a fight. The world is better off without guys like that. I'm sure he had loved ones, and every death is a shame, yadda yadda yadda, but we're better off without him, based on what I've read the last couple days. The world is too polarized, and he was working for polarization.

I don't understand what I was supposed to be having revealed to me by facebook commenters (who're about half a step up from youtube commenters, but thats not saying much)... Yes, I still believe he was a cunt.

Breitbart was great, sad loss to a great news hound who sought to expose the hypocrisy of the liberal media. For a guy who helped start the Huffington Post he came a long way. RIP

:D

If you can't say anything good about the dead, don't say anything.







Andrew Brietbart is dead.
.

Ibbie, you just practiced the very thing you preached against, even as you preached it. Bad, incivil Ibbie!

Despite your robust IQ, you are never going to exercise it by reading Righteous Indignation. That omission isn't going to serve your mind well.

I can think he's a cunt without wanting the man dead, UG.

Don't gimme static; I know more about life than you do, and am not afeared of those parts of the US that are not the Northeast. Read his book instead.

Free Protip: they're not going to notice your being gay unless you outright ask them to. About the only thing that scary They are going to notice right off is, "oriental guy, eating a burrito at the Taco Bell." Republicans are not coming after you with castrating knives and quiche pans.

Maybe you missed the bit where I came out as a girl... I think They are going to notice that, UG.

It's not Republicans who I think hate me. its bigots. There's a lot of bigots out there, especially in the South and out Utah way. And those bigots that vote vote overwhelmingly Republican, and so you get candidates like Rick Santorum.
Like it or not, he's the face of the Republican Party now, UG. Disown him if you like, but he's what you've got.

No. Santorum is not the "face of the Republican Party." Don't go having hysterics like that; it is unbecoming. It also shows ignorance on your part. Now is that the rightful face of Ibram?

I'm of the Libertarian Party persuasion myself. Being of the right-lib stripe, I find many Republicans sympathetic -- and no Democrats, however amiable in person. The Donkeys are way too much the Party of Stupid, rejecting fiscal sense and economic literacy in favor of sympathizing too much with Occupy. We need say little of the party affiliations of the KKK -- you know those guys didn't vote R.

A friend of mine is a FTM tranny. Has to live on meds or he's a mess inside. Wanna take him shooting at the range one day.

Yeah, sure, he's not the face of the party. Just the close close second in the race to be their presidential candidate. That's not a huge representative position or anything.

If he isn't the face of the current Republican party, UG, who is? You can't ignore him just because he's not what you WANT Republicans to be.

I believe in civil liberties, personal freedom, and a strong social safety net. You believe in the first two, I think, and not the third. The Republican party has made itself into SUCH a social-issues, moralizing, evangelical-christian party that it no longer can be construed to be for civil liberty and personal freedom. You may disagree, but that is why I will never, ever support the current incarnation of the social-issues-focussed, hyper-conservative, sexist, racist, homophobic, and at the end of the day thoroughly disgusting Republican party.

See? You prove your determined ignorance of all things Republican, and that is downright disgusting. You've shown me in detail what you want the Elephants to be, and what you want them to be does you great discredit. Reading about three issues of National Review would explode the whole myth.

Again, such hysterics are unbecoming, and partake overmuch of the white sheet. I'm too virtuous for that one, I can tell you that.

I hope one day you will be too. What you are doing now you should not be doing, even if a bunch of slobs around you in college are doing it and telling you it is virtue. They risk never growing up, really.

Well thought, and fairly accurate. A "strong social safety net" has the disadvantage of being highly bureaucratic, and hence snaring personal freedom and even civil liberties in its meshes. Another freedom reducing factor is that given its head it sucks up an increasing fraction of the resources, the wealth and the money, of any economy it is attached to. Money so consumed can't be put to use creating the general prosperity, a thing the Democratic Party will deny in extremis. In practice, this becomes an ever more extreme extremity of statism until in the end, unchecked, you get a Camazotz, an "Everything Not Forbidden Is Compulsory." Such utopias are much too rigid to function with the human mind -- the problem of utopias everywhere. Taking this road is extremely dangerous to life as the good should live it.

(Digression: Utopia is only utopia if you're the only inhabitant. For everyone else, your utopia doesn't fit. The Randians are among those who never did get that.)

Politics may -- and very often does -- annoy the hell out of a fella, but Utopia is the end of politics, and in a very bad way.

So the conclusion of all that is in the main, we should and must do without a "strong" social safety net, in exchange for a minimalist one -- hence less argument for statism and more for living the lives of human beings, free, adult, and most usually sane.

Republicans have had about 2 years in control of legislatures across america, and the house of representatives. The result has been unprecedented attacks on voting rights, abortion rights, privacy rights, doctors' rights, workers' rights, union rights, gay rights... the Republican party was the party of RADICAL social conservatism, at the DEEP expense of civil liberties and rights, under Bush... and now they're doubling down on it.

In what way is the republican party NOT a radical social issues party, UG? in what way does the republican party work to ensure civil rights, rather than impose a conservative, christian moral vision on America? I reject the notion that freer markets help ensure the freedom of the minorities against the tyranny of the majority, or that the republican social agenda is in any way pro-civil-rights unless you have some REALLY good evidence.

I'll read three issues of the national review if you watch a week of Rachel Maddow.

Can't. No cable, and without cable here you get no television reception at all -- the Oxnard plain just isn't favorably located relative to the VHF transmitters, plus the changeover. Could read some Nation, though American Scholar might be less emetic or more sensible.

Not true. Won't, maybe. Probably. But not can't. If you can read this post, you can get the show.

As an aside, I am amused to see UG getting his butt kicked by a girl. (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). UG says :

That is **TYPICAL** of UG, channeling Rush Limbaugh perhaps; I heard precisely the same sentiment from that other bloviator the other day. That statement is pure fantasy. UG knows more about life than Ibram does? How can you support such a claim UG? How can such stuff be measured anyhow? And even if you could measure it, how do you know what Ibram knows? You frequently substitute your opinion for fact, this is just the most recent offense.

And one more thing, just a personal note. The style you use by opening with "Don't argue--I'm right" is one you use over and over and over. It doesn't work. It isn't valid. It isn't effective. But I find it very annoying, so, points there.

www(dot)rentadrone(dot)tv/msnbc-live-rockinroosters/

Anyway. Tell me how the Republicans' economic policies support freedom more than their social policies shit all over freedom. I'm all ears.

So you decided to take the drugs?

hm? which? what?

nm.

;)

Anyone but Obamy in 2012. That really is the most important issue. And if he wins at least the other side should control the Congress.

Okay, merc, how would Rick Santorum's economic policies be better for America than his radical social policies are terrible for freedom and liberty and social civil rights?

Ah come on Merc. ALL the candidates I've seen have seriously way-out views.
You might not like Obama's slant, but he's closer to the middle than the Republican whack-jobs. They all seem to want a theocracy for a start!

Your middle is our right wing, and so I don't see Obama as an ideal President.
But he's had his hand on the tiller through a rough ride - global recession (caused in part by American bankers), withdrawing from a costly war in terms of $, lives and global opinion, losing the 2022 World Cup to Qatar...

I know I'm biased because of my politics. And I know we won't agree on those. But I worry - not every night, but sometimes - about any of those fruitloops in power. I do not want to see A Handmaid's Tale become a reality before I die.

The media's job is done here.

Don't mean to be rude, but this is what they do. Their entire job is to determine and sit upon the worst possible horror you (that's you plural) can be emotionally worked up by.

To their defense, the media didn't have to work real hard to do it.

Maybe.
I don't read American papers, although I read articles here and follow headlines and quotes from site to site. And there are youtube clips and historical compilations regarding votes cast and points argued.

I would be far more careful if I was voting myself, of course.
But quote after quote, from their own mouths, suggest that these men are as crazy as I think they are (IMHO) and not just being painted that way by biased media. Again, bear in mind you have no left-wing press on the scale that we use to identify it, and I am definitely left wing.

Oh and as a European atheist, YMMV on my definition of crazy.

Are you saying that Sundae is wrong?

Yes

So we shouldn't talk about any issues, then, lest we find we're just reacting to the media who told us about the issue in the first place.

We cannot discuss death, guns, war, destruction, crazy-ass-shooter rampages, celebrities, celebrity deaths, book reviews, movie reviews, sports, politics, comic strips, want ads, commercials, the advantages or disadvantages of laxatives, or Activia, music, gas prices, evil, good deeds, human suffering, the indomitable human spirit, fibromyalgia, cancer, bad dogs, good dogs, rats, tv shows, beds, clothes...

So, what do you guys want to talk about? The weather? No, that's on the news so I don't have my own opinion about it. ;)

Fucking christ, really? I'm so sorry that my opinion is different from yours and you can't seem to handle that.

I didn't say don't discuss things and I don't have the right to. You put that shit on yourself. Don't you even dare suggest I ever said not to discuss anything.

And by the way if you want to suggest you don't have a hysterical reaction to the media? Try not having a hysterical reaction to my post about it.

Seriously? Who's hysterical? Jebus, man. Double triple FFS.

Sorry about the tongue in cheek comment. I didn't know you lost your sense of humor.

This is what's so lovely here. Who needs it? Meh.

Again. I'm flabbergasted.

And about ready to puke.

Now let's all go discuss boogers and how we pick them. Fucking christ.

idiot
 

Toad,

When I read this...

-

So we shouldn't talk about any issues, then, lest we find we're just reacting to the media who told us about the issue in the first place.

We cannot discuss death, guns, war, destruction, crazy-ass-shooter rampages, celebrities, celebrity deaths, book reviews, movie reviews, sports, politics, comic strips, want ads, commercials, the advantages or disadvantages of laxatives, or Activia, music, gas prices, evil, good deeds, human suffering, the indomitable human spirit, fibromyalgia, cancer, bad dogs, good dogs, rats, tv shows, beds, clothes...

So, what do you guys want to talk about? The weather? No, that's on the news so I don't have my own opinion about it.

-

...I take it in the spirit it was offered: one of bemusement. You, however, viewed it as an attack.

Thin-skinned is too polite an expression for you.

Bluntly: her comment was smart and funny...yours, reactionary and stupid.

Thanks henry. It's nice that there's a man around here who has a pair.

alrighty then

er, that is to say, sorry. I think I will just bow out of Politics altogether to save my sanity and the sanity of others.

henry--

For the record, you're factually wrong when you say Undertoad is an idiot and stupid. Neither he nor his comment was stupid. He didn't say to not discuss topics, go back and read it and you'll see I'm right.

The leap to "we're not to discuss things found in 'the media' " was suggested by infinite monkey. That was a leap, for sure. I'm glad you hear bemusement in her voice, that's great, really. Her comment was a giant leap of questions and suggestions after Undertoad's one word answer to a question posed by Sundae. You heard bemusement, I heard alarm. Was that theatrical alarm? Maybe. But it was a reaction far out of proportion to his neutral, factual, honest and non-reactionary and non-stupid answer to another dwellar.

Your ad hominem attack isn't anything like a persuasive argument in addition to being a lie. You look bad by it.

BV, you're biased because you don't like me. You don't like me because I'm not completely fond of you. *shrugs*

Anyone who has ever read any post of mine knows my posts. I was having fun writing it. I expect, if anyone, UT would get that. How is that alarmist? Was my winky not effective? Are you trying to win Pompous Man of the Year? Have you never read me before? Have we just met?

You should mind your own business on this one. Slobbering up UT's ass looks bad on you. It looks par for the course, but it still looks bad on you.