Originally Posted By ecdc https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/breitbart/0e8f1e346505f331287a2b46c86b21b35db47718/ A million times yup.
Originally Posted By ecdc I just realized this is available to read now, but goes behind a paywall in 11 hours. Get it while you can.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Oh well, I missed the cutoff.<< (1) Email me. (2) Or maybe not. The article makes some good points, but it's very long and a bit hysterical in tone. (I'm one to talk.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I thought the first half (about Breitbart himself) was excellent. The second half, about who's left in his organization, made my eyes start to glaze over.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The best point the piece in question made was that Breitbart somehow saw himself as the heir to people like Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and George Carlin. But he was anything but. Throwing around some four letter words and drinking/drugging too much doesn't put you in that camp. That's about the only thing they had in common. Those people spoke truth to power. Breitbart was an errand boy for the already powerful. His targets were largely the weaker and marginalized, and those who would stand up for them (like ACORN). The article gave plenty of examples, and as I said, that was the best part of it.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "The best point the piece in question made was that Breitbart somehow saw himself as the heir to people like Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and George Carlin. But he was anything but. Throwing around some four letter words and drinking/drugging too much doesn't put you in that camp. That's about the only thing they had in common." Really? Since when was he a comedian? Seems like strange people for him to compare himself to when those guys could actually be funny, even if they went on political rants.
Originally Posted By ecdc What I enjoyed about the article was how it so mercilessly exposed Breitbart for what he was. Since he died young and so suddenly, apparently we're all supposed to be respectful. While I'm not going to go dancing on the man's grave, I'm certainly not going to go along with the media portrayal of him as a "fierce warrior" for his cause, a designation that only serves to legitimize what he did. Most human beings are decent people who mean well. Andrew Breitbart was one of those rare anomalies: A true jerk, an absolute awful excuse of a man who seemed to know what an a-hole he was and took great pleasure in it in a way that bordered on sadistic. Indeed, I'd wager he was less conservative ideologue than he was just a tool who got genuine satisfaction out of harming and humiliating others.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The article WAS overly long, but it did to Breitbart and his cronies exactly what they did to others, except this article had facts to back it up. I never did understand the going easy on Breitbart when he died. He was a vicious, lying turd who didn't care on bit for anything other than what could benefit him. Frankly, I was glad he died. One less truth distorting propagandist to have to deal with.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "The best point the piece in question made was that Breitbart somehow saw himself as the heir to people like Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and George Carlin." Wow. Really? That's just...wow. That would be funny if he wasn't so toxic.
