Gay Patriot Header Image

We Have Lost A Patriot.
Andrew Breitbart, RIP

Shocking news this morning from the Big Journalism site

Andrew [Breitbart] passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew Breitbart was a force of nature.  He took names, announced them, left the tattered lies of the Left he exposed behind… and moved on to the next castle of liberalism to storm.

I had the pleasure to meet and know Andrew.  As many of you know, he was on the GOPROUD Advisory Council for most of the last two years.  It goes without saying that without Andrew, GOPROUD would not have been as successful as it has become.  Andrew was a fighter and he was at his best when he was fighting for the little guy — he saw gay conservatives as the little guy and we are better because of it.

Many in the conservative blogosphere knew Andrew better than I.  But I am saddened greatly this morning because I know what an important figure has been lost in our movement.  He was someone that always fought against the tidal waves of doubt and conventional wisdom.

A life taken way too soon.

Andrew, I’ll miss your force in the world greatly.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

174 Comments

  1. Cinesnatch:

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why *the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer*. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    The bottom line here is that in a thread about the memory of a good man who is now tragically lost to us, you’ve insisted in a discussion lasting 100+ comments (and replete with sidebars from you about how *you personally* have been insulted or offended by other people telling the truth, etc.) that he was bad. That’s your choice. You can say whatever you want. Likewise, I’m free to defend him, and free to point out the great weaknesses in your ‘narrative’ about him.

    On occasion, I’ve had something negative that I simply had to say about someone who just died too; but I haven’t insisted on it in a lengthy toe-to-toe debate with those mourning the person. At the end of the process here, I’m left wondering how precisely you are better than Little Kiwi whom you put down, and who in a sense was (1) being honest and (2) got it over with.

    You’ve made your bed, now lie in it.

    As for the Cleaver video: The form verb “spits on” implies intention. I call bullsh*t… what you try to imply is nowhere in the video.

    Please note that just because some person has titled the video as a spitting incident, and the Congressman may have tried to play up that angle himself, doesn’t make it so. The video itself reveals no intentional spitting. None. Nothing but a guy shouting words – *words* – as the Congressman passes.

    Look again. Or are you blind? The shouter makes no spitting motion of any kind. He shouts. Now whether a little hit the Congressman inadvertently (or whether there was in fact none at all), I couldn’t say… but either way, it is clear that nobody intentionally spit on anybody.

    You will have to ask the Congressman, if / how much / why he chose to play it up. Not me. “Not my problem.”

    Do note also that the video proves Breitbart’s point about Congressman Lewis: That no one in that incident shouted any N-word at him. How gracious of you, Cinesnatch, to have noted that Breitbart was right. (Oh wait, you didn’t.)

    Your other video, by the way, shows Breitbart talking about how the media manufactures anti-Tea Party story lines… not talking about race per se. There again, Cinesnatch, you seem eager to believe (and to re-tweet, as it were) phony storylines that people have slapped onto the videos as titles, rather than actually comprehending what the video shows.

    The pattern is this: You repeat manufactured left-wing bullcrap about Breitbart, and then *cannot even register* your opponents’ points in response, for example, the many points in this discussion when I have (in your words) “specified which line Sherrod said and the subsequent reaction that proves racism”. All of which bespeaks a vast bias on your part, Cinesnatch; one as irrational as Little Kiwi’s. I can’t see the difference between the two of you.

    You tell us in effect that we mustn’t over-interpret the video which shows an NAACP audience enjoying the prospect of Sherrod’s plan to discriminate, lest we have no integrity like Breitbart… and on the other hand, you imply that we should very much interpret (as Tea Party racism) the video which shows Cleaver **not** being intentionally spit upon. My irony meter broke, I want it back.

    Breitbart says all he needs to: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4288023/andrew-breitbart-defends-sherrod-story/

    Anyone who wants to claim that his target all along wasn’t NAACP racism, can suck it. And anyone who wants to taint either the Tea Party or Breitbart with the left’s manufactured bullsh*t is a leftist at heart, and a vile one, no matter what their pedigree or protests to the contrary.

    Cinesnatch, I thiink that means you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  2. If someone shouts in your face to the point of soiling you with their spit, then, yes, it does becomes your problem, unless you don’t mind getting spit on.

    You define getting spit on as someone who premeditatedly forms and launches a collective unit of saliva. You don’t consider someone vehemently shouting to the point of launching units of saliva from their mouth as spitting.

    Well, if you had been in the Cleaver’s shoes, maybe your belief would have remained the same. But, if someone is shouting in MY face and getting saliva ON MY face, as far as I’m concerned, they are spitting on me. How gracious of you to be willing to absorb the spit of that protester without complaint if you had been walking by. You are a bigger man than me, ILC, a bigger man, as I would have been tempted to bring my fists out.

    We can agree to disagree on this matter. Namely, I am calling you the bigger man on this.

    Breitbart’s target WAS the NAACP. No question.

    And, yes, anyone who wants to “taint” the Breitbart/Tea Party with the left’s manufactured BS can also, to quote your over-utilized homage to Breitbart. “suck it.” (Interesting use on your part of using those two sexually-charged terms within such close proximity of each other; just an observation.) And, yes, they are leftest at heart. Vile is a rather harsh word, but not worth going into a discussion on.

    So, I don’t qualify for this, but then, at the very end you say I do. You’re calling me vile. Wow. ILC. I make a case. You refuse to go all the way to tear the case apart by stopping short of using actual quotations/subsequent reactions/within context. Instead, you call me vile.

    Thanks, friend?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - March 3, 2012

  3. And, though it SHOULDN’T need to be said, because we’ve all graduated from high school here, I’m wondering if I really need to spell things out:

    PARAPHRASING

    IS

    NOT THE SAME AS

    QUOTING

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - March 3, 2012

  4. If someone shouts in your face to the point of soiling you with their spit, then, yes, it does becomes your problem, unless you don’t mind getting spit on.

    Ah, now we’re starting to understand.

    Shouting at someone is the same as spitting on them in the mind of the desperate Obama supporter.

    Well, in that case, would you like to see film after film of gays and lesbians spitting on people with whom they disagree?

    Will you then state that if those gays and lesbians are punched and beaten up for doing so, that they deserve it?

    The game is very straightforward with you, Cinesnatch. ILC pulls you out on a limb, then saws it off behind you, demonstrating how you are utterly and completely incapable of applying, living up to, or following the same standards you demand of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 6:20 pm - March 3, 2012

  5. Looking at the Cleaver video one more time. Yup… at 0:13, Cleaver veers right into a protestor’s face (arguably invading the protestor’s personal space), then reacts away from his face. But the protestor isn’t spitting; he’s shouting words. And Cleaver *does not* wipe anything from his own face except later and in a small way, at 0:31. When Cleaver returns into frame at 1:23, he isn’t even sure who he’s looking. And no one spits on him there, either. No one.

    Anyone who can look at that section of video and claim that the protestor spit on Cleaver intentionally (rather that inadvertently – or not at all, quite possibly) is either blind or, in my opinion, a big fat LIAR. And, needless to say, I don’t extend my friendship and generosity to liars attempting to create trouble by their lies (which, sadly, is much of the Left). Or those who willingly run alongside them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - March 3, 2012

  6. Typo, “Cleaver returns into frame at 1:23, he isn’t even sure who he’s looking –for–.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - March 3, 2012

  7. You don’t consider someone vehemently shouting…as spitting.

    Correct. The more so, since:

    1) Most protestors at most protests, Left or Right or Greek or Chinese, “vehemently shout to the point of launching [small and unintentional] units of saliva from their mouth.”

    2) It was Cleaver who veered over (however inadvertently – or not?) to within about twelve inches of that protestor’s mouth.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 6:40 pm - March 3, 2012

  8. ILC, where in post #152 did I say the protester spat with intent? In Post #152, I specifically went out of my way to explain that I wasn’t using spitting as the most commonly accepted definition. I went out of my way to define how I was using the term “spit” as the conversation negated clarification. In Post #152, I clearly go out of my way to address that what transpires is inadvertent spitting. I find it unfortunate that even after I explained the spitting was inadvertent in post #152, you still pushed the possibility that I was claiming the chance that it was intentional. If someone is shouting uncontrollably to the point of holding up their hands to amplify themselves that spit comes out of their mouth, they have very little regard to the humanity of the person walking by them. Period.

    0:13 Cleaver isn’t any closer to the black shirt protestor than man in the grey shirt (with sunglasses and white beard) behind the protestor is to the black shirt protestor.

    0:13 Cleaver’s head turns slightly away from the protestor and Cleaver’s left arm starts to lift in a reflexive way.

    0:14 Cleaver lifts his left hand to his face in a swatting motion

    0:30 Cleaver looks at his right hand and then uses it to wipe his face off.

    1:23 I think you meant to say that Cleaver was having difficulty identifying the elderly Caucasian man with the white beard and sunglasses. Because, you know, there were so few of them.

    Was it racially motivated? I don’t think I so anymore. At least, not to the point, where one can conceivably argue racism. But for you to suggest that I am lying … ILC … I’m sorry you think that I would stoop that low.

    So, you’ve called me

    1) A liar (a person who intentionally fabricates and spreads mistruths–someone you KNOW me not to be; if so, please provide links)
    2) Vile (loathsome, disgusting, morally depraved, wicked–again, something you KNOW not to be true; if so, please provide links)

    I’ve made no personal attacks on you ILC, but I really am thinking your assumptions about me are getting the better of you. All I have done is questioned your assertion that there was racism in the Sherrod video.

    I’ve conceded to you on the Cleaver video after closer inspection. Yet, I’ve paid even closer inspection to the Sherrod video and all you are willing to bring to the table is paraphrasing. Perhaps, if you took the came approach you did with the Cleaver video, we could arrive at the same conclusion.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - March 3, 2012

  9. 1) I don’t spit when I shout, especially when there are other people around. And, when I do, I take note and modulate myself. But, maybe I’m in the minority on this.

    2) Cleaver didn’t walk into his space any closer than the grey-shirted man was behind the black-shirted man. There was a good 18 inches between Cleaver and the black shirt protester.

    But, again, I’ve conceded the main thrust of our disagreement, so there is not need to respond to this.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - March 3, 2012

  10. BTW, if you actually quoted the Sherrod video in respect to her lines and the reactions instead of paraphrased, THIS THREAD WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY SHORTER.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:15 pm - March 3, 2012

  11. 159) “I don’t tend to spit” …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - March 3, 2012

  12. 158) I don’t think I do anymore

    same approach

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:31 pm - March 3, 2012

  13. Quoting what someone says on a video is as easy as blockquoting on GP, by the way, which you have plenty of experience with.

    [Added later at the commenter’s request:]

    To Susannah Bean and your four children,
    I am sorry for your loss and apologize for choosing the wrong venue to express my opinions. It was in extremely poor taste. My apologies also to Dan, Bruce, all GP commenters, and anyone else who comes across the Breitbart RIP thread.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - March 3, 2012

  14. ILC, where in post #152 did I say the protester spat with intent?

    Much too late for that, Cinesnatch. See analysis that opens #145.

    So, you’ve called me 1) A liar

    Nope. I said this:

    Anyone who can look at that section of video and claim that the protestor spit on Cleaver intentionally (rather that inadvertently – or not at all, quite possibly) is either blind or, in my opinion, a big fat LIAR. And, needless to say, I don’t extend my friendship and generosity to liars attempting to create trouble by their lies (which, sadly, is much of the Left). Or those who willingly run alongside them.

    You decided the shoe fits. I notice you went straight for it.

    But let’s do some others, though.

    – “Vile” as a modifier on “leftist at heart” – yes.
    – Now we can add “coward”. (“I implied the Tea Party was racist when I said, here is video of some protestor spitting on Cleaver, except that I secretly meant only my own special definitions of Tea Party, racist, video and spitting, so that I could later claim that you were wrong, once you showed how I was wrong about that video.”)
    – And finally, “narcissist”. (Having finally made a memorial thread for Andrew Breitbart ‘about you’.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - March 3, 2012

  15. Which list(s) shall we add “coward” and “narcissist” to?

    The List of ILC Traps I Fell Into (where we’ll find the bait I took: “liar”)

    or

    The List of Things You’ve Called Me But Changed the Definition of After-the-fact To Back-step from Your Insult (in this case “vile”)?

    Or, how about the more general Insituation List that you like to hide behind every time you “suggest” personal attacks?

    Just want to know before we proceed, because even though I can admit I am wrong (about the Cleaver video, as well as your crafty use of the word “liar” which I feel for), you can understand the precaution I’m taking as you change the rules (in this case with the definition of “vile” as a “modifier of leftist at heart,” which I couldn’t find in the OED).

    And, while I was in the OED, I double-checked that there was still a difference between quoting and paraphrasing (there was). Also, I didn’t find anything about litigating under quoting. In fact, quoting is quite simple. I actually offered my transcription services earlier in the thread to show you how easy it is, but you didn’t care to provide your own.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - March 3, 2012

  16. Quoting what Sherrod said and reporting how the audience reacted is as easy as reporting on the movement and reaction of the Congressman and protester in the Cleaver video.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - March 3, 2012

  17. But for you to suggest that I am lying … ILC … I’m sorry you think that I would stoop that low.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:51 pm – March 3, 2012

    Or he’s simply experienced with the fact that you have done so repeatedly and already, using as your excuse that “other people are doing it” or to try to “win” an argument.

    And if you’re so sorry, then why do you continue to tell lies that would lead ILC to that sort of an assessment?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:17 pm - March 3, 2012

  18. God is good, I can tell you that.

    [Amen]

    When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people … and to black people only.

    [Silence]

    But, you know, God will shows you things. And he’ll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about POOR people.

    [Alright, alright.]

    The first time I was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking. But, he was trying to show me he was superior to me.

    [Alright.]

    I knew what he was doing.

    [Alright, alright.]

    But, he had come to me for help.

    [Mm-hmmn.]

    What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

    [Laughter]

    A story about a woman who is treated condescendingly by a man because of her skin color who has come to her for help. The woman, who had explained her background to the audience, shares a point in her occupational life where the tables had turned. A story she prefaced that she would learn a lesson from: “you realize that the struggle is really about POOR people.”

    NOTE: She prefaced to the audience that her story would be a lesson about helping POOR people, regardless of the color of their skin.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:30 pm - March 3, 2012

  19. Oh, but, hey, I’m sure if you nudged the camera a little to the right, there would be a sign that read “Down with Whitey.”

    /sarcasm

    Racism? If so, ILC, you shouldn’t have trouble making a career out of being a mind-reader.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:40 pm - March 3, 2012

  20. I don’t trap people. I tell the truth.

    If I tell the truth, and person X feels trapped, then evidently person X feels trapped by the truth. Not my problem.

    The NAACP audience laughs as Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    No reasonable person says of two others, “A spit on B”, without meaning that A tried intentionally to spit on B.

    To say that a Tea Party protestor spit on Congressman Cleaver based on the video extract under discussion here, is a lie.

    The Tea Party are the good guys, in the struggle to bring fiscal and personal responsibility back to America. To suggest otherwise, is a lie.

    To repeat known lies persistently, is vile.

    To repeat known lies about a man in a thread where his admirers mourn him, is vile.

    To make the man’s thread about yourself, oh say, by persistently spreading lies and then demanding over and over and over that people pay attention to you and constantly trying to change the subject back to people’s supposed offenses against you, is vile.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 9:30 am - March 4, 2012

  21. Our exchange in this thread speaks for itself. Good bye.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - March 4, 2012

  22. Sorry, one last thing:

    It’s true that:
    1) The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion …
    2) The burden is to offer some positive and objective evidence for the assertion … The one who made the assertion goes first – if they aren’t just making an empty bluff.

    15. November 2011 from ILoveCapitalism

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - March 4, 2012

  23. Oh I forgot:

    if you actually quoted the Sherrod video in respect to her lines and the reactions instead of paraphrased, THIS THREAD WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY SHORTER

    To insist that your opponent somehow failed to point out where the NAACP audience laughs as Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate, when your own transcript states that very thing, Cinesnatch, is demented.

    And to insist that it was unreasonableness of others which drove you to behave the same as Westboro Baptist Church (and worse that Little Kiwi) in slandering a dead man insistently, is vile.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 10:30 am - March 8, 2012

  24. The burden is to offer some positive and objective evidence for the assertion

    Very well, then. First, my assertion was/is:

    The NAACP audience laughs as Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    I now offer (except it has been here all along), the following transcript, with **emphasis** added for the benefit of willfully obtuse jackasses playing the part of Westboro Baptist Church, in an online observance of a good man who tragically died.

    he had come to me for help.

    [Mm-hmmn.]

    What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

    **[Laughter]**

    Really, Cinesnatch: your behavior in this thread has been vile. You made your bed, Mr. Vile, now lie in it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 10:51 am - March 8, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.