Why do we mourn the dead?

So... uh... Any particular piece of news from MSNBC even close to as audaciously bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and meaningful as the O'Keefe ACORN tapes? Not to mention that your link is broken. Do you mean this? Because in this case, opinionated means "has a lot of opinion shows". Not "most biased" (it ignores for example legitimate news shows presenting the information in a way so as to twist the story to suit their agenda). I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if they were the most biased, but here's the thing: that's so totally irrelevant. As stated, Breitbart belongs to the same category of shameless scum as Mike Adams, Joe Mercola, Alex Jones and possibly Michael Moore (is he still relevant at all?) - the audacity to say incredibly false things to sway public opinion, and the audience to actually cause significant harm to public discourse.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Have you already forgotten about Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A? That's convenient.

The message from these leftwads is always clear - "Become one of us or face the consequences."

Lol! You really don't get it, do you? Andrew Breitbart was only a "special kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" in the sense that he knew exactly how to mirror the left's behavior to infuriate them. And it worked like a charm. Consistently. He always reiterated, "Be petty." Why? Because that's exactly what they do. The truth of the matter is that if you got upset by the way Breitbart operated but you're not just as upset by the way all those people in the liberal media operate everyday, then you're just a pawn in what they're doing. Because you don't even see it and you only recognize it from the other side. Their side has just become the reality you've been lulled into. You've essentially been brainwashed and you don't even realize it.

Breitbart isn't going to resonate with everybody. The hypnotized politically correct masses aren't going to get it. Because they've been too heavily conditioned. But the people out there that have seen the rather glaring disconnect between the narrative and the facts for way too long are going to celebrate this as something that's been a long time coming and was quite frankly long overdue. Citizen journalism is the new media. And Breitbart was all about citizen journalism. Because it exposes what the suits in the networks consistently omit or distort in order to maintain a predetermined narrative that is at odds with the facts.

 

What, you mean the boycott of an institution for sending money to hate groups analogous to the KKK except considerably more virulent? Dan Cathy got so much negative PR entirely of his own actions.

Well, in that case, it was more "send money to hate groups and you will face the consequences". You know, like if Microsoft came out and sent a big wad of cash to the American Nazi Party; I suppose you wouldn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*)? I expect people to stand by their political convictions, and Cathy's were incredibly offensive. Exodus International was, especially at the time, a big deal, and it pissed a lot of people off to hear that he and his company were supporting them. And that's entirely reasonable. Obviously, those who vandalized locations crossed the line, but in terms of nasty PR? You reap what you sow.

Blah blah blah concern troll blah blah blah tu qoques blah blah blah everyone is equally bad. Well you know what? I don't see it. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm not just about to take your word for it without a bit of explanation. What kind of things is the "left wing media" responsible for which was half as influential and half as shameless as the O'Keefe ACORN story?

Baah humbug.

Keep going like this and you can achieve some sort of stupid right-wing buzzword black hole. Vague, unexplained bull(*)(*)(*)(*) like this just makes my eyes glaze over and make me disinclined to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anything you have to say. And you know what? It's not just me. It's everyone who doesn't already agree with you. And you do this all the time. You make these vague, sweeping posts with nothing to back them up, and expect us to take them as some big words of wisdom. It's neither convincing nor interesting. If you have something to say, then say it, but do us all a favor and at least try to hide the fact that there's nothing but soapbox.

 

Back to the topic. When a friend or loved one dies, I am saddened by the loss of their companionship. But I do not "mourn", I celebrate their life, and remember the good things they brought into my life.

 

WAYYYY too many stories about his sexual perversions with children for it to simply be a tall tale. He might have had a messed up childhood and a stunted maturity level, but he was a grown man and he had sexual desires, just like every man. He most likely could not relate to people his own age, so he looked to children.

The dude was a pedophile. There's no need to whitewash his perversion just because he was a talented musician.

 

We mourn the dead mainly because of our own sense of loss, especially if it is someone close. There is a certain amount of empathy as well involved in normal folks which can cause introspection as well as a stark realization about one's own ultimate demise. As a contrast, A Psychotic personality may completely lack the ability to empathize so others' deaths may have no deleterious affect on their psyche.

 

...My my, this does reflect poorly on me from the time my classmate died...

 

Yeah...And?

 

Dan Rather, anyone?

Which direction do you think the opinions lean - be honest? MSNBC was found to have much higher ratio of "opinion/factual reporting" than the other networks - sure it didn't specify which "side" the opinions leaned toward, but it's really a no-brainier - in fact the bias was so strong that MSNBC fairly recently had to just come out and admit that they're "a place for progressives", not an objective news network.

I recall an MSNBC commentator said last election that "Ron Paul wants gays executed" - I'm not a Ron Paul fan but this is an outright lie (there was some religious extremist who wanted gays executed, who voluntarily did campaign work for Ron Paul - and MSNBC twisted this to say that "Ron Paul wants gays executed"). MSNBC never apologized for it.

Not to mention, Ed Schulz pretty much lied outright during the Perry campaign - he took an edited segment of a Perry speech where Perry referred to a "black cloud looming over America" and said this was a racist attack on Obama - but when the clip was seen in full, it was obvious that he was referring to the national debt as the "black cloud", not Obama himself.

I don't see how this is any different.

 

I'm not. I'm simply trying to be as objective about it as possible. I think too many people are quick to jump to one conclusion or the other based on their previous perceptions of him. That's why I mentioned evidence for both sides of the argument here. I'm not trying to give him a free pass any more than I'm trying to throw him under the bus. My only concern is for the truth. Whatever that might be.

Great job, man. Now you're doing it here, yourself. Proving exactly what I said. "Either become one of us or face the consequences." Your definition of a "hate group" is anybody who isn't politically correct. And you won't even think twice about trying to ruin somebody's life, business, or whatever if they dare have a different opinion than you. You must vilify them, attack them, condemn them, and harass them until they acquiesce. And if they don't acquiesce, you'll do everything you can to destroy them. You people are bullies. You don't even try to understand people you disagree with. You just hate them for being different. And you have no moral hangups about slandering, defaming, or misrepresenting them in order to twist the narrative to make yourselves look like the good guys.

People like you are the entire reason Andrew Breitbart had a job. Do you even realize that? So be proud. You created him. He's your monster, Dr. Frankenstein. And with the attitude you're expressing here, you're only further guaranteeing that there will be more like him in the future. Because you people refuse to learn your lesson.

Aren't you German anyway? You've got a lot of balls accusing someone else of being hateful considering the fact that your country committed one of the worst crimes in human history just within the last century. Talk about overcompensation. Trying to prove how "tolerant" you've become now. If I were a German, I would be too embarrassed to ever criticize anyone about anything.

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. After this winner of an opener, it's clearly just going to be a rambling mess of bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I'll just leave these here:

[video=youtube;AB9RoS42HaI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB9RoS42HaI[/video]

[video=youtube;f9S2KjrnGag]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9S2KjrnGag[/video]

This isn't even bias. It's outright distortion. It's diametrically opposed to the actual facts.

Show me one thing Breitbart has ever done that matches this. Just one. I await your response.

 

He's not German, he just lives there. But I am, and the history of my country gives me the duty to criticize things. Just for the record.

 

Ah yes, the report which was actually merely Dan not really checking his sources as well as he should have rather than any intentional fraud, was almost immediately revealed to be faulty by the channel that ran it, and over which several powerful people lost their jobs. That's totally analogous to an entire career of professional bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting.

Yep, that is a lie. And to Schulz's credit, he apologized and retracted it. I'm not sure what impact if any it had, politically, but that is in fact a thing that happened. Schulz is a (*)(*)(*)(*)head; this is not news.

I feel the need to reiterate the question. If you found out that Steve Ballmer was funneling company money to, say, the KKK or the Golden Dawn party, would this bother you at all? Exodus International is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate group. Their work is extremely harmful to homosexuals, their entire schtick being shaming you into not being gay (which of course doesn't work, but guess who's fault they say it is when it doesn't?). That is inexcusable, and I know a lot of people, liberal and conservative, who would refuse to buy products from a company that supported an organization that was that immoral and wrong. Honestly, I think it says a lot more about you that you don't understand this - either you don't take what Exodus International does seriously, or you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what corporations do with the money you give them. Neither stance paints you as particularly smart.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You're trying really hard to stuff me into a pigeonhole, but I'm not a pigeon. This has (*)(*)(*)(*)-all to do with political correctness.

Oh, is the straight, cisgendered, rich white christian man having a little trouble because he funded hate groups? Lemme play you a song on the worlds tiniest violin. Believe it or not, for the vast majority of those up in arms about this, their harassing, condeming, destroying stance came down to "I'm not going to buy products from Chik-Fil-A any more because they support hate groups, and I recommend you do the same, at least until they stop and apologize". That's not an unreasonable stance. That's a basic moral choice in purchasing. And some of the people who took this stance had media presence and shared it around. Again, totally reasonable. And you're trying to paint this as some massive conspiracy to destroy Chik-Fil-A? That is really, really dumb.

*Sproing*

*******mit, I just got that irony meter fixed from when Brewskier called someone else a racist. This would be a lot less depressing if it weren't for the fact that rich, white, cisgendered Christian men have basically since the dawn of the nation been the most privileged mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ers on the face of the planet. For you to complain about us "bullying" (read: boycotting) a white, cisgendered Christian man who owns a national corporation because he funded hate groups - groups that aim at taking a shot at one of the most abused minorities in the western world without trying to understand them and who basically hate them for who they are and how they're different - the irony is multiple kinds of sickening.

I'm sorry, slander? Misrepresentation? I'm not quite seeing it. Help me out here, will ya?

Wow. Come on. You're not better than this? Trying to shame me with something that happened before my parents were born? I'm actually not a native German. I'm American, I've just lived here for the past 8 years now. My mother is jewish. My grandmother is Baltimore-style orthodox jewish. This is about as stupid of an argument as I've ever heard.

Well, if I was an idiot of the degree to say something that stupid with any degree of self-awareness, I would probably just slink off and not come back out of embarrassment.

Reminds me of most of your posts!

In context, the video feed mentions many people with guns. I doesn't explicitly mention the black dude in the paragraph they get (*)(*)(*)(*) for, so at best Greg is making a mountain out of a molehill and at worst he's doing exactly what you accuse democrats of doing.

You mean the kind of thing fox does constantly?

Well, there was the Shirley Sherrod case, where he edited a video to make it look like she was discriminating against white farmers. When the full tape came out, it turned out that nothing of the sort had happened. In the meanwhile, however, Sherrod had lost her job. There was his work distributing O'Keefe's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ACORN videos. The Pigford case. Occupy Unmasked, which helped further many of the nastier false ideas surrounding the Occupy movement. Please, shall I go on?

 

We are not the only creaturs on God's green earth that at least give the appearance of morning the Dead, elephants certainly do as do some other species of primate.

 

FCA/FCS is a hate group? lol still angry that the left's attempt to ruin a Christian backfired and CFA recorded RECORD highs in sales and profits....


lol

 

No, but we're not commenting on that particular donation, are we?

Still making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, I see.

 

See what I mean? You don't have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what a "hate group" really is. As far as I can tell from their wikipedia page, Exodus International's entire agenda was conversion therapy. THAT'S NOT HATE! It's just not politically correct. In fact the tag line from their actual website says, "Speak. Love. Establish trust. Reduce fear. Inspire hope." Oh, the horror!

To hear you talk about it, you'd think Dan Cathy was giving money to Westboro Baptist Church. The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two speaks volumes about your character. It portrays you as a person who puts ideology ahead of facts.

 

Nice try. Breitbart explained in print that "her humanity ended up making her do the right thing," but none of the lefty Breitbart haters bothered to read that part. The tape still prominently displayed her racism and indeed the racism of the people listening in agreement.

And what exactly was "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" about them, sweetheart?

INB4 "heavily edited"

Lol! Wait, wait, wait, so by just filming the Occupiers in their natural behavior and releasing it to the public, that's promoting "false ideas?"

Dude, I certainly understand why you might be mad about how they looked if you're pro-OWS, but you should be mad at the right people. Be mad at the Occupiers. They were just being themselves. I'm sorry if you thought they were some kind of noble savages and your illusion was shattered, but the truth is still the truth.

 

...You know what? Not gonna bother. If you think the complaint that the videos were completely full of (*)(*)(*)(*) isn't valid, and you've serearched the issue... No. Either you are not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot and you understand how the dishonest editing of those videos completely misrepresented ACORN, or you are not worth my time.