Hating Breitbart: The Trailer

|

Above is the (explicit-language!) trailer for the documentary titled Hating Breitbart, which is due out this year.

Read Matt Welch's remembrance of Breitbart, who died suddenly at age 43.

Read my notice of his death here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Justin Amash's House Seat at Risk

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think I’ll wait until HBO comes out with a balanced docudrama telling my how stupid and evil Andrew Breitbart was, thank you very much.

    1. Not going to see it…but didn’t think that Julianne Moore would be able to pull it off physically as well as she seems to have.

      1. I never found Moore attractive even when she was younger.

        1. Moore was and is smoking. She’s a grown up hot woman.

          1. Don’t like her features. She is just not that pretty. That forhead is brutal.

        2. Is it because she’s a ginger? That’s ok, anti-ginger bias is one of the last acceptable prejudices.

          1. The feeling is mutual. Piss off, darkies.

          2. No. Some redheads are gorgeous. I just never liked her.

            1. Noted. Now go away.

        3. Jeez John they’re not all your ex-girlfriends. I just was thinking that she looks different enough that no one would accept her in the role.

    2. wait so people think Palin is stupid?
      Get out.

    3. I think I’ll wait until HBO comes out with a balanced docudrama telling my how stupid and evil Andrew Breitbart was, thank you very much.

      That’s being directed by Oliver Stone.

      1. Sarah Palin thought the Queen sent the British troops into Iraq. They were briefing her on Iraq for her debate and she said she would “talk to the Queen” if Britain wanted out of IRaq.

        1. And she would have been technically correct.

        2. Who’s Sarah Palin?

    4. When you play the game of thrones you win or you…end up on HBO.

      1. Game of Thrones is awesome, not ugly like John’s version of Julianne Moore.

      2. HA!

        +1

  2. I love the woman yelling and calling him a racist, and at the same time taking his picture!!! Proof of the hypocrisy that he fought against!

  3. Saw this the other day, but after Andrew’s passing it becomes even more powerful – Today we mourn, tomorrow it’s war… the cause must continue. God rest Andrew

  4. These people are just a mob. Fortunately they are a mob of douche bags and are not actually dangerous. The Bolsheviks and the Brown Shirts had some real rough people. They show up at your door you have a problem. These people, not so much.

    1. Well, they do have the Purple Shirts (SEIU goons) who are more than happy to slap people around for The Cause.

      1. True. But even they are just bullies. I can’t see them being too scary.

        I was thinking more of people like the journolisters who enjoyed calling people rat fuckers and fantasizing about throwing someone up against the wall. If Stewart Ackerman and Yglesias ever showed up at my door, the only danger I would be in would be hurting myself from laughing so hard.

        1. The difference is that the lower classes that they are claiming to speak for aren’t actually living in piles of shit, unlike in France and Russia.

          1. They are working on changing that Pro.

            1. Yes, interesting how that is, huh?

              1. It is. Of course when they actually do manage to conjure a mob, they will have about as much chance of controlling it as the sorcerers apprentice.

    2. They show up at your door in modern America, they get issued a couple of new holes to breath through.

      Not valid in NYC and Chicago.

  5. I love the woman yelling and calling him a racist, and at the same time taking his picture!!! Proof of the hypocrisy that he fought against!

    That’s just mom and she gets that way sometimes. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to “Do English”!

  6. I wish he had asked the ‘racist’ yelling, picture taking woman if she cared to pose for a picture with him
    -sometimes humor is the only reply

    1. That is actually funny. And yes, that is exactly what he should have done. And yes humor is often the best reply.

      1. stop accusing me of being the spoof; I made two comments today and the first was “RIP”

        -please don’t reply to any of my comments either

        1. Everyone knows you are the spoof. I am just pointing out the obvious. And stop spoofing and being so nasty. Just post and everyone will leave you alone.

          1. Spoof? Do you have proof?

            1. would you, could you on the roof?

              1. Reason posters are so aloof.

          2. You’re stupid; don’t reply to me again

            1. You know you love me rather. Why don’t you just come out and admit it.

  7. Who the hell watches these documentaries?

    1. People who go to movies in the Village and West Hollywood.

  8. No one should be surprised by Brietbart by now, he’s been caught so many times now presenting information in a biased and deceptive way that you know what you get from him. If you like to get your information in a biased and deceptive way that is often later shown to be erroneous, he’s your man.

    1. to the rescue!

    2. He’s dead Jim.

    3. That’s a good point! Of course you’re right…no one in the MSM would ever inject bias into reporting.

      1. The “MSM” is a big world, there’s a tremondous amount of variation among outlets and reporters as to how biased they are.

        1. Indeed! There is a tremondous amount of variation! Funny how the variation all seems to fall on the side of expanding government power.

          1. That’s just silly. I guess the biggest news channel (Fox) and one of the biggest print outlets (the WSJ) are somehow not part of the “MSM.”

            1. Both Fox and the WSJ are statist outlets. Fox especially so.

              The MSM is almost uniformly statist. If you argue with this, you’re either being a lying shit or you’re a high-functioning retard.

              1. And yes, WSJ is pro drug war, pro closed borders and anything but libertarian. At best they have a traditional conservative opinion staff. But that is it.

                1. And yes, WSJ is pro drug war, pro closed borders and anything but libertarian.

                  The WSJ is decidedly not pro closed-borders as their official line. It’s not a full-on open borders crowd, but they are decidedly more pro-immigration and against illegal immigration crackdown than their peers in the mainstream conservative press. Still a statist position, but a more sane one.

                  Likewise their position on the drug war; they feel the government should be focusing on managing the demand and cleaning up the fallout from drug abuse rather than waging a war against its own citizenry.

              2. Well of course they seem statist to you Epi, you’re an extreme anarchist. Everyone to the other side of you is a terrible, slaving statist…

                But if you use any useful comparison, like comparing where their coverage falls to the mean public opinion on issues, you see that big chunks of the media are not very left at all.

                1. I didn’t say “left” or “right”. I said “statist”. And of course you don’t think they’re statist; because you’re right there with them.

                  Which doesn’t change the fact that they’re statist. So which are you going with; liar or retard? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say both.

                  1. Epi, the market for “non-statist” media is small because the audience is small. It’s not some conspiracy, there are just not a lot of anarchists.

              3. I agree with this. The politics can vary, but the emphasis on the government is shocking. NPR, for instance, should be called NDCR.

            2. The WSJ is only conservative in its opinion page. The reporting has been shown time and again to be further left than even the Times or the Post.

              And yeah, Fox News is conservative. That is one cable network. You want to trade Fox for CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the Times, and the Post and well as every other big city print paper?

              Fox only gets good ratings because it has a corner on the market of what it does.

              1. “The reporting has been shown time and again to be further left than even the Times or the Post”

                Sure it has. I’ll take your word, you know, the guy who thought the article critizing Obama by the Jesse Helms aide was biased for Obama and got called on it yesterday, for it.

                “That is one cable network”

                Yeah, the biggest one. I guess that is not part of the “Mainstream.”

                It’s a childish meme, give it up.

                1. While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

                  http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta…..-6664.aspx

                  That is one. There are others. Google? How does it work? You are such a pathetic child MNG. Do you even read?

                  1. OOOOOOOh, John found a study!

                    1. There are lots of others that say the same thing. Now go find me something that says why that is wrong or disproves it or shut the fuck up. You are wrong and you know it.

                    2. And there are lots of others that say otherwise.

                      Heres one:

                      http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

            3. Nothing more to add. MSM….more government!

            4. Amazing how quickly they got to be the biggest channel. Almost as if network news was a monotonous litany repeated ad infinitum, and they came along with a (slightly) different voice.

              1. Odd how it works like that isn’t BP. All the major media is totally fair. Not liberal at all. Yet, a conservative alternative rakes in millions of viewers. Just bad luck I guess.

                1. Conservatives enjoy biased media, you’re living proof of that. You don’t care that Brietbart has mis-reported to you, what you care about is he feeds your ragee and bias.

                  So yes, Fox found that audience. But the fact it did so is a terrible argument that the MSM must have been biased, it’s just as likely that it was because the MSM would not give conservatives the bias they want so badly.

                  But my more important point is that it is incredible to talk about the “mainstream” media and not include the biggest outlets in it. It shows how weak and spongy the entire meme is.

              2. Fox is explicitly right wing. The fact that there was a niche for explicit right wing media doesn’t prove the existing media was explicitly left wing. It could be that lots of people on the right just wanted what the MSM was not giving them: explicitly biased right wing reporting.

                1. Or maybe the MSM is filled with explicitly biased left wing reporting and Fox was an antidote to that?

                  Let’s see MNG, when is the last time a major media outlet faked a memo to try to destroy an incumbent Democratic President? That would be never. And of course when is the last time a person left the media and wrote a book exposing right wing media bias? That would be never. But Bernard Goldberg did just that. And it is a good thing 90% of reporters don’t vote Democrat or anything.

                  1. I just want to bask in the hilarity of your logic here John: the fact that Bernie Goldberg wrote a book about bias in the media proves it, right?

                    You are a piece of work!

                    1. No dipshit. It is evidence. That combined with the appalling behavior of the media towards Republicans and the fact the 90% of newsrooms are Democrats combine to paint the picture.

                      Since you can’t deny that, what you do is pick out each individual piece of evidence and pretend that that is all there is and argue that that alone doesn’t prove anything. As if the other pieces didn’t exist.

                      That is called sophistry. And that is what you do. You are the most intellectually stunted and dishonest person I have ever seen. You just incapable of making an honest argument.

                    2. “No dipshit. It is evidence.”

                      Yeah, that kind is called anecdotal.

                    3. Yes. And enough anecdotes produce a pattern and become persuasive.

                    4. “Enough anecedotes”

                      John, you’ve named one!

                    5. No dipshit. I named a whole list. Rather, the voting patterns of reporters. The study.

                    6. And I countered with one showing the attitudes of reporters are not to the left of the public….

                2. The fact that there was a niche for explicit right wing media doesn’t prove the existing media was explicitly left wing.

                  I guess it just looks like that when you’re fully ensconsed in the left wing.

                  1. the left continually misses the point. When it shrieks “bias”, all it has is Fox. The rest of us consider the network alphabet soup and the big dailies and the weeklies and hollywood and and and. But mention the Catholic Channel and the left gets the collective vapors.

                    1. That is right Wareagle. MSNBC and NPR are paragons of fairness. Since there is not a single leftwing media outlet in the world, why should the right have Fox?

                    2. Yo equate NPR and MSNBC in bias shows how deranged your meme is here.

                      Do you really think those two are equivalent? WTF?

                    3. You mean MSNBC is biased? I thought left wing media bias was a meme? What do you mean one of the major networks is biased?

                      Which is it? Are none of the major outlets biased or is a major network really biased left?

                    4. MSNBC is actualy more biased than Fox, by a lot.

                      I’ve always said that.

                      You really have no idea how to wrap your head around a non-simplistic idea, do you?

                    5. MSNBC is actualy more biased than Fox, by a lot.

                      So leftwing media bias is not a made up meme then. It is true. You admit one of the big three networks is more biased than even the evil Fox.

                      Good to know. Thanks for letting me win an argument.

                    6. It’s a good thing I never denied the existence of media outlets having a left wing bias. What I said is that this simplistic idea that “the MSM” is some monolithic left wing bastion is simplistic and stupid.

                      You really don’t see the nuance there, do you?

                      Or anywhere I would guess…

                    7. Peddle peddle peddle. Keep moving those goalposts MNG.

                    8. There’s no movement: where did I ever say there is no left wing outlets?

                      Here’s EXACTLY where I started:

                      MNG|3.1.12 @ 3:16PM|#
                      The “MSM” is a big world, there’s a tremondous amount of variation among outlets and reporters as to how biased they are.

                    9. Yeah the American news media…they really are on the case!

                      …how pathetic is it that Congress just passed a law basically outlawing free speech around political candidates, and yet the only major news organization to catch it was some pro-Putin propaganda factory?

                    10. So fox and MSNBC are biased. Who else is biased? Tell us more MNG. Is the New York Times biased? the Washington Post?

                    11. I think the WP is not very biased at all. In fact not long ago writers on NRO were commenting on how good it is.

                      The NYT tends to be a bit more biase, but nothing like, say, the Washington Times.

                      As I said, there are outlets all along the bias continuum.

                      But you’re being disengeous here, so let me let you talk to yourself. You don’t care a whit about bias, because you only care about your cause. Your only bias problem is that there is not enough of it on your side for your taste. Unlike me, who can easily denounce liberal dishonesty and bias, you can’t do that to your “comrades.” You’re a hack dude.

                    12. The “MSM” is a big world, there’s a tremondous amount of variation among outlets and reporters as to how biased they are.

                      True enough. They range all the way from brain-dead group-think biased, to actively colluding with political apparatchik biased.

                      With vanishingly few exceptions, of course, the bias leeeans one way, though.

                    13. Did John misspell “pedal” or “paddle?” Is MNG moving his goalposts via canoe or tricycle?

                    14. and the substantive difference between NPR and MSNBC is? They are at least as equivalent as Fox and talk radio, the latter of which at least has the decency to tell you exactly where it stands.

                    15. That is an insane comment. Insane. If you can’t tell the difference in bias between Hannity and All Things Considered I feel sorry for you.

                      I mean, in your nutty scheme where does Air America fall? You’ve just said NPR is the equivalent of Limbaugh, so where do they fall?

                      See how clumsy and stupid your meme is?

                    16. Hannity is a talk show; there is no pretense of objectivity, let alone journalism. Please. The man’s a shill for the right and the show is damn near unwatchable. The regular news hours at 6 and 7 ET are pretty straight up, to an extent. NPR’s no different from the networks and dailies; they all lean left and it’s not even an open secret anymore. It just is.

                    17. OK, so you at least grasp that Hannity and Limbaugh do not = NPR’s news shows.

                      I guess that is progress.

                    18. I hear some of the best libertarian minds regularly on NPR. Cato has guests regularly on the Dianne Rehm show and Talk of the Nation. On Point recently had an entire show with Charles Murray.

                      There’s nothing remotely like that on right wing talk radio.

                      I’m not saying NPR doesn’t lean left; most of their hosts are clearly liberals. But they strive to have conservatives on and to try to play devils advocate. It’s a big difference. All you have to do is check an actual, flat out left wing org like MSNBC to see the gulf between that and NPR.

                    19. You’re absolutely right–everyone knows that Hannity occasionally has liberals on and lets them speak.

                      The difference in bias is glaringly obvious.

                      The weird thing is, I suspect that FOX might not be biased at all. We are so used to getting our news with a leftist slant that actual balance looks like a shift to the far right.

          2. One guy even went so far as to say that the entire nation is akin to his own home.
            To be fair, pretty much the entire political landscape is on the side of expanding government power. It should not be surprising that the media reflects that. It’s one of those fish not seeing water things. When both major parties are all about expanding government, it is no surprise that most people don’t notice that there might be other options politically.

    4. The funny thing with Brietbart, along with a lot of movement conservatives, is they will in interviews straight up admit they are biased and trying to present information to further their “cause.” They just think that’s ok because they say “everyone does that, you can’t help it.” I guess we’re all relativists now…

      1. If this you rather, this is actually a funny spoof. MNG posting away with no idea that Breitbart died is actually good trolling.

        1. Brietbart is dead? He seems awful young for that.

          Did he choke on his own bile?

          1. Look it up. It made some of the papers this morning.

    5. The number he did on Shirley Sherrod was wrong, and I said so when it happened. Everything else that he did was dead-on accurate.

      1. So is the consensus that Sherrod wasn’t actually a parasitic racist? That Breitbart just made her look that way by selective editing?

        1. Sherrod (rather bravely) admitted to hating white people when she was younger, but changed her mind when she got older and realized that her earlier attitude was wrong.

          It was critical to see this entire portion of her speech in order to get the full context of what she was truly saying. Instead, the video was selectively trimmed in order to make it seem as though she still felt that way even while she was making the speech. In this case, Andrew was just wrong to do this.

          1. I thought Breibart was commenting on the cheers Sherrod got when she admitted she hated white people, not on the fact she changed her mind.

            1. That is exactly correct & is the part no leftist will ever admit to. The clip was not to denigrate Sherrod as much as it was to show the bias of the audience.

  9. The guy was a stress junkie. He lived for anger the way daredevils live for thrills. Grievance was his mother’s milk. It’s no surprise he checked out early.

    1. If Bill Maher only had that kind of dedication!

  10. Oh joy, let the hate- and hagiography battle royale begin!

    1. MNG apparently didn’t hear he died.

      1. No, I don’t keep up with Andrew Brietbart every day dude…

        He seemed like a pretty reprehensible creature to me, so I’m not very upset. How did he go?

        1. He was a highly effective polemicist. He just pointed out stuff that embarrassed you. I know in a just world, he would have been silenced by the government. But we don’t live in that world yet.

          1. “He just pointed out stuff that embarrassed you”

            Are you kidding? He was great for liberals. He got caught red handed so much we could always point to him and say “there’s your conservative media for you.”

            He’ll be replaced by someone soon,

            It’s amazing that you loved him so after your reliance on his stories made you backtrack so very much. You’re like an abused wife or something.

            1. MNG,

              The fact that liberals hated him so much is proof of the damage he did to them. Liberals love “conservatives’ who help them. The more you scream MNG, the more you show how defensive you are.

              1. Shit, I didn’t even know the blowhard was dead. Like I said, he was good for what he was good at: being a demonstrable duper of folks like you….

                1. Let the mask slip MNG. Let the mask slip.

                  1. Now really John, why the love for the guy? Several times he fed you demonstrable falsehoods which you then relied on and had to backtrack on.

        2. “Natural causes” huh.

          He was pretty fat and always angry. I’d guess heart attack?

          1. It’s not our fault you are a piece of shit. Please stop taking it out on us.

            1. OMG, I think you’re actually upset by his passing! This is yummy beyond belief!

              1. Cool story, bro.

              2. in most of polite society, we try not to make fun of those who just died, even if we don’t particularly like them. Is that gene absent among the left? See, I thought Ted Kennedy was among the most vile creatures to ever walk the earth, but I took no joy at his passing.

                1. ” Is that gene absent among the left?”
                  Yeah, because you never see that here or on right wing sites.

                  Your selective concern is noted dude, now tell us about all the “bias” surrounding you…

                  1. that it occurs on the “right-wing sites”, if it occurs, does not make it right. Nothing selective about it. I don’t celebrate folks dying. It’s just bad form.

                  2. Operative word: “polite society”

                    Websites are most definitely not that.

                2. But Bratbaert called Kennedy “human excrement” the day he died.

                  1. If true (unlikely) it would have been technically correct.

        3. Your new name is “Pot”.

  11. David Frum:
    “And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous.”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..-2012.html

    1. Now there is some lack of self awareness. This coming from a guy who makes his living as a professional concern troll who hasn’t written an honest word in 10 years.

      Yeah, David, lying is definitely good for the body politic.

      1. It’s funny, when Frum was one of the chief cheer-leaders of the Iraq War and John was a fellow pom-pom waver for that cause I’m sure he hated Frum just as much.

        Sure.

        1. I did. I have never liked Frum. And since Obama has become a cheer leader for the war in Afghanistan and now probably Iran, looks like you are a cheer leader too.

          1. Let me borrow a page from your book. you say you have posted here since 2001. Frum was one of the main cheerleaders of the IRaq war, which was also your pet cause for a while here. So, you say you hated him even then, can you produce ONE single post from that time where you criticized him?

            1. I have been criticizing Frum for years. Go look it up dipshit. So do you plan to volunteer for Obama’s war in Iran? Are you a chickenhawk?

              1. As you say, produce it then.

                1. Whoa, hot John on MNG action!

                2. You are the one making the accusation.

                  1. No, no, this is YOUR move buddy. You make this charge all the time, where you say “if you can’t produce an example of you saying X then shut up on it!” Would you like to relive some examples of you doing it?

                    Good for the goose, but not the gander?

                    1. I don’t like Frum. Never have. If you have evidence showing I once did, produce. Otherwise shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.

                    2. You’re great, I have to say. You make that charge all the time, I’m glad to see you finally see how goofy it is now…

    2. Frum….I thought his 15 minutes of fame was about 14:30 too many! Did they catch him jerking off to pictures of GWB before they got his take on todays events?

    3. Ok, so that evil cocksucker didn’t like him. +1 more for Breitbart.

  12. This clip is ridiculous. Breitbart aside since he was a relative peon the poison all started with 90’s AM radio and Fox News. They are congenital liars with no journalistic integrity unlike the “liberal” media like the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal (yes, the WSJ hard news reporting is considered liberal).

    The source of the poison is from the right – remember the “murder” of Vince Foster by the Clintons?

    To just start the blame game on Jan 20, 2009 with the rise of the self-entitled “Teabaggers” is just disingenuous. It goes back to Morton Downey, Jr,, Rush Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and the like. Common liars all.

    1. Your rage amuses us.

    2. well, of course, the media universe was filled with saints and kings prior to Fox. It apparently never dawned on you that the real “genius” behind Murdoch/Ailes and Fox was finding a niche market: the 50% or more of America that did not trust the MSM.

  13. OT:
    Doomsday scenario number 2,761

    “An aurora borealis may be beautiful, but can there be too much of a good thing? A new study published in the journal Space Weather analyzed the frequency of the solar storms that cause auroras and found that there’s a one in eight chance that by 2020 the Earth will be affected by a major solar flare.

    The risk is far greater than previously thought. ”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..13136.html

    1. In the 1870’s, there was a flare that actually caused fires in telegraph stations. If that level of radiation hit today, it would be… bad.

      1. In an instant America’s access to porn would be virtually wiped out.

        1. And they called me crazy for burning DVDs of fap-worthy ‘lesbians’! We’ll see who’s crazy when pornageddon hits!

          1. Dammit, we can’t keep taking the Internet for granted.
            http://www.southparkstudios.co…..rnet-reset

        2. The accounts of the 1859 Carrington solar flare are really interesting. Miners being awakened by the aurora, because it was bright enough to mimic daylight, that sort of thing. I think you’d have a lot of issues if it happened in the present day: massive power failures, lots of hashed computers, maybe a bunch of dead astronauts.

      2. If that level of radiation hit today, it would be… bad.

        And, of course, totally the fault of global warming.

        1. Or abortion on demand. Maybe both.

          1. What about too much sugar in the American diet?

            1. What if we just go with the high greenhouse gas output of obese fetuses?

              Obetuses?

  14. joe | October 17, 2008, 2:47pm | #

    God bless ACORN, out there registering 13 million new voters. They’re doing God’s work in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America.

    1. HAHAHAHAHA

      It never gets old, does it?

      1. No. It really doesn’t.

      2. The whole thread.

        It really is a prime example of joe at the height of his hackery powers.

        1. SugarFree|3.23.10 @ 8:58AM|#|show direct|ignore
          ACORN shuts down as a national operation.

          joe expresses his grief as only he knows how… by masturbating into a bag of Fritos and then eating them on the toilet while sobbing.

          I propose a contest… What is joe doing in light of today’s news?

          1. Ok, it was a little sad that you had saved the joe quote from years ago. But re-posting your own quote about joe, that’s just pathetic dude….

            1. No it is not. It is funny as hell. Joe was a dishonest hack who deserves every bit of scorn he gets.

            2. Why? SF is a professional archivist, after all.

              1. No, that it matters, John and PL, but I didn’t save it, I merely used the search function. Oooooohhh, the scary search function! BURN THE WITCH!

                1. You are doing God’s work Sugar Free.

                  1. Nah, I’m just a right-wing meme, John. Everybody knows that.

                    1. I thought you were in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

                    2. Well, he is vast.

                    3. I’m just big boned! And my bones look just like a gelatinous beer belly for some reason.

          2. It’s hard to say. Does the institution let him use the internet, or have they taken it away from him as a punishment for throwing his poop at the orderlies?

            1. Wait… before committing your entry, first read this and remember just what a smug shitbag he really was.

              1. This has to be some sort of attempt at satire.

        2. I’ve got a real problem with this getting people to register and busing them in business. Sure, you can make it sound good, but it’s easy to register and it’s easy to vote. What’s going on–and we all know it, including the partisan defenders of the practice–is that these people are being told how to vote or are selected because of how they’ll vote. Not like they’re working with people they expect to vote the “wrong” way, is it?

          1. ” but it’s easy to register and it’s easy to vote”

            For you and me it is. But surely a libertarian can appreciate how it might not be easy for an elderly, uneducated poor person to navigate government bureaucracy in certain ways.

            1. Getting a driver’s license is more fucking complicated. Dude.

            2. This is unmitigated horseshit, MNG. If you can’t figure out how to register to vote, fuck you, you don’t need to be voting.

              Elitist? No. If you’re too dumb to fill out a postcard with your name and address on it, you don’t get to play. This is setting the bar extremely low. Any lower and we’d be letting comatose people vote.

              1. So government bureaucracies are easy for everyone to navigate. I’ll remember that for future decisions…

                Plus, a lot of elderly people could surely use rides to the polls and such…

                1. Nobody said that. Nice try though.

                2. So government bureaucracies are easy for everyone to navigate. I’ll remember that for future decisions…

                  MNG, if MTV staffers can get kids wearing hoodies who say, “dude” a lot registered, it can’t be that hard.

          2. I really and truly don’t have a problem with rounding up voters and busing them in like it’s a day-trip to an Indian casino. But it’s not noble. And it is not a shining moment for democracy. And the government sure as fuck shouldn’t be funding it.

            1. I’d agree with 2/3 of this, I don’t have a big problem with it, it’s not noble, but I can see the government wanting to increase voter participation as long as they did it across the board (which of course was not what ACORN was about).

              1. Increase certain voter participation. Let’s not pretend that they’re doing this with just any voters.

    2. MNG says that was a lie. ACORN was pure as the driven snow. It was just that creature Breitbart who destroyed them.

      I mean Jesus who wouldn’t want to help and pimp and his underage prostitute?

      1. What are you talking about? I’m no fan of ACORN, joe was.

        You’re deranged in your grief of the falling of your comrade in arms.

        1. But Breitbart is a liar. Everything he did was a lie right? You mean the ACORN stuff was true? Really? Maybe Breitbart did some good then?

          1. Let me get this straight: the fact that Brietart “did some good” somehow exonerates him for getting caught red handed presenting things deceptively for his cause?

            Do you think the same thing for Dan Rather? Of course you don’t, because you’re hopelessly devoted to your cause and have the double standards that go with that. That is why your charges of bias say much, much more about you than about your targets.

            1. Let me get this straight,

              You admit Dan Rather was a liar?

              And you admit that ACORN is a horrible organization that Breitbart exposed doing great good by doing so?

              Lets get you on record saying that first.

              1. “You admit Dan Rather was a liar?”

                Yes, I have no fealty to Dan Rather. WTF?

                As to ACORN, I criticized them before Brietbart “exposed” them.

                I don’t lie biased sources for my information John. I find Brietbart and Al Sharpton, Hannity and Maddow to be all equally useless.

                That’s a difference between you and I.

                1. What does no fealty mean? Say Rather was a liar who used fake documents to try to take down a sitting president or shut up. Sorry, you are not getting away with kind of criticizing. Do it no matter how much it hurts you.

                  Same with ACORN. Why did you criticize them? What about ACORN do you object? Tell us why they are a bad organization in detail. Or just admit you don’t think that and are claiming so in an attempt to win the argument.

                  Sorry but you have to do better than this.

                  1. You said “was Rather a liar” and I said “yes.” How could I do this plainer?

                    I criticized ACORN because they were misuing government grant money, and I actually said they probably shouldn’t get the money even if they used it in some pure way.

                    It terrifies you that not everyone is possesed by the single minded ideolgical bias you are, doesn’t it?

                    1. How were they misusing grant money. Tell me more. What were they doing with that grant money? A lot of places misuse grant money. What made ACORN so bad.

                      And why is Rather a liar? What did he do? Which incidence of his lying are you talking about?

                    2. You really are deranged today. I told you Rather got caught lying and that ACORN is sleazy. What’s wrong with you?

                      Now, can you admit Brietbart was caught doing his own deceptive thang a bit? Hell, even Reason and the Blaze busted him on this.

                      And if Rather is not exonerated for his lying, why should Brietbart be? Is it because he was a “comrade in arms” for you, and you have a different standard there?

                      There’s a name for that…

                    3. And it rhymes with “artisan smack”

                    4. What was Rather a Liar about? And how is ACORN sleazy?

                      I am not letting you off the hook. I don’t believe you. You are just saying what you think you need to to win the argument. Sorry, that doesn’t work. Give details. No matter how much it hurts you, explain why you think these things so there is no doubt you do.

                    5. Poor John, so grief stricken he can’t take yes for an answer…

                      You loved the guy, didn’t you? Is that why you let him keep humilitating you?

                      I guess I’m sorry for your loss…

                    6. When? When did Breitbart lie? The only lie I every hear about is Shirley Sherrod–and Breitbart made his point quite eloquently. The NAACP is a passle of unabashed racists.

                      While Sherrod’s story had a ‘redeeming’ end, the audience was cheering and laughingat the point in the story when she was being a racist bitch. That is indisputeable–despite anything that happened later in the speech. And it was that action that Breitbart was trying to highlight. That these supposed paragons of civil-rights virtue weren’t very virtuous.

                      The left fabricated the idea that he had it in for Sherrod, that he was hiding the rest of the speech, that he was engaging in duplicitous actions.

                      So yes, there are lies that swirled around Andrew Breitbart, but they are the lies of the left.

        2. Will you two cool it before the neighbors call the cops? The dog is shaking.

          1. WINNER!

            Thanks for coming folks!

  15. watching the opening of the trailer i can’t help but think it describes Reason’s lifestyle libertarianism as well as liberal condescension. that goes for Breitbart’s own (lack of) ideology as well — it’s always been sort of weird to me how strident the rhetoric of a lot of the mainstream Right is when they’ve conceded plenty of issues to the Left. to the extent that there is any significant “swing vote” within the GOP, it’s socially conservative types who are disgusted with the party’s current cultural leftism. it’s not “South Park Republicans” who obsess over minor tax increases and pretty much agree with the stereotypical leftist assessment of middle America as a bunch of “Christianist” forehead-sloping retards. personally i give liberals more credit cuz at least they have a coherent ideology based on the God of Equality. Reason libertarianism is just extended adolescent narcissism.

  16. the Democratic Party’s cultural leftism that is.

    damn your neofascist editing policies. FREEDOM!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.