Andrew Breitbart Dead of AIDS at 83

And that is probably all you learned.

 

To be fair to all... the "likely to offend" and "objectionalble content" terms are a matter of interpretation and therefore anyone may report any post at any time for any reason, as well as the mods doing their thing at any time for any reason they wish. Ultimately, it's the site-owners call.

Now, who is this Breitbart?

Never mind.

 

I'll be more than happy to listen and learn from you, but I'd appreciate it if you did so in a kinder tone. Now, is there something you want to teach me?

 

It was not meant to be a comment about you. Rather it was a comment on the inane purpose of this thread. i.e. there was little to be learned in this thread unless you are looking for how some people adjust the facts and meaning to suit their own goals.

 

Was it lack of creativity on his part?

 

English lessons? My Engrish is just fine, thank you.

Would you like some logic lessons or are you happy with your usual nonsensical knee-jerk RW raging? I'm afraid this site has become a total waste of time. Your politics are your religion and we need to deal with you as we deal with any other class of religious freak. Insure that you have the freedom to rant and rage in your fever swamp but do whatever we have to do to keep you out of power and generally out of the way.

 

Yep!
You are correct. I have trouble creating and passing on lies so I used your great experience as an example.

 

Your speaking might be, but your understanding apparently is not.

Oh, my! i am shaking in my boots. More liberal insults to avoid the facts - or are those examples of untruths that are not lies. Since you are leaving. take care. In case you missed it, that means you take care.

 

Having muddled through the posts on this thread I am left with a question.
When is it proper to speak ill of the dead?

Are we still in mourning over the loss of Bin Laden? I know I didn't shed any tears nor did I have anything nice to say about him when he was alive.

How about Hitler. A swell guy? - or mass murderer? Can I speak ill of him?

Moen's post is in poor taste IMHO. However, it is brilliantly done.

 

I have never been known for my good taste. My sense of humor sure, but good taste, not so much.
Who was it that said tragedy plus time equals comedy. I prefer to say that tragedy plus sleaze bags equals a good time had by all.
Let's face it, the world is a better place today than it was yesterday because we have one less person out there creatively editing videos in order to ruin good people's lives. Why is that a bad thing?

 

Who said I was leaving? I'm simply trying to decide how to make this fun. Since there is no point in taking you seriously it shouldn't be all that difficult. I can't speak for Moen of course, but my guess is that he figured this out some time ago.

 

I would guess that you then enjoy wasting your time. Oh, well, so be it.

 

Yeah Takiji.

All the rest of us have accomplished so much here. Never a wasted moment when brick walls chat with other brick walls.

 

I apologize. In my defense, Republicans make me twitchy.

But there is something not yet mentioned about this thread that may provide an actual learning opportunity. Whether or not someone has died from aids isn't the issue, at least to me.

When I read the title I didn't think anything of it, because someone with aids dying isn't terribly controversial to me. Whether true or not, IMO it doesn't make a lick of difference.

So, my question is: Why are you all so upset about it? Why would the man's supposed death from aids be so controversial to you all?

 

If someone dies from complications from AIDS, the passing of that human being is a terrible thing. Breitbart DIDN'T die from AIDS, in fact there is no mention of him dying from AIDS in any credible news source anywhere. The "controversy" (if you want to call it that) is that Moen posted a blatant lie on this forum and affirmed in the post that he was lying. Actually, this issue could be resolved if a moderator would weigh in. I'd like a moderator to answer the following question:

May a member on this forum create a thread in which the title is defamatory against another person, living or dead, but within the post explain that the title is a lie?

As an example, could someone create a thread entitled, "(Name of Forum Member) TESTS POSITIVE FOR SYPHILLIS AFTER HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH HIS MOTHER", but then in the first post state, "Sorry folks, I'm lying".

 

Regardless of what you think of AIDS or his age, moen's intent was nothing more than to besmirch his name. And then comments such as these are added;

And then when challenged to show where a conservative here wished harm to the liberals, I got a bunch of blanks.

 

He better not say he was lying. It is just an untruth. That way everything is OK according to "them".

 

There is a far more serious issue here than a blatant lie. I've seen blatant lies on this site before, hell... made some myself, and no one got this upset.

So...why is this lie so different? AIDS itself shouldn't be... its a disease that can be caught by anyone ...and this isn't the 80s. So defamation would not likely apply here.

The guy isn't a member (that I know of) so "personal attacks" can't be claimed.

Certainly offensive and objectionable apply (the posts in this thread indicate objections), but that's true for every post on this site and would need further explanation as to why it was offensive or objectionable... and having AIDS shouldn't apply since it's a disease.

Besmirching names appears to be the norm here... as in "Trumps hair (fill in ...whatever)"... so that doesn't explain the issue either.

So I still have to ask: Why is this such an issue?

 

But, daddy, all my friends are .......

 

You're still missing the point. It isn't that Moen said Breitbart died of AIDS. Moen could just as easily have said that Breitbart died from syphillis, pancreatic cancer, diabetes (the list goes on). The point is that Moen claimed that the man died from a specific illness (why he chose "AIDS" we may never know) and then turned around and stated that he lied about it. Personally, I don't care what Moen says about the recently departed; that's his business. I think it was in extremely poor taste, but I expect no more from Moen. I was making the point that, on this forum at least, the site owner has set specific rules about our conduct here. One of those rules is that they won't tolerate defamation. Now, it's still up to them whether or not they consider Moen's comments "defamation".

It's sort of like when Clinton had an affair. I couldn't care less what he did in the bedroom. But, he lied (perjury) when giving testimony. Everyone was screaming at the time, "It's just about sex". No, it wasn't. It was about perjury. You're focusing on the "AIDS" aspect. I'm focusing on the lie. Actually, I'm through focusing on this thread. If Moen can chuckle to himself about what he said and feel good about it, he's the one who has to look at himself in the mirror. It's a very, very dark reflection, though.