Andrew Breitbart is dead.

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Andrew Breitbart, the conservative blogger and journalist, died suddenly on Thursday morning, according to his website Big Journalism. He was 43.

The site said that Breitbart died of "natural causes" shortly after midnight on Thursday.

Breitbart came to be well-known for his work with the Drudge Report (he also played an early role with The Huffington Post), and would go on to found the Big Journalism, Big Hollywood and Breitbart.com websites. He was also an author, columnist and ubiquitous commentator in the media.
Click to expand...

huzzah?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-blogger-dies_n_1312944.html

The site said that Breitbart died of "natural causes". He was 43.
Click to expand...

let the crazy accusations fly!


enhanced-buzz-25564-1330615718-33.jpg


enhanced-buzz-25498-1330615796-31.jpg


http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/people-who-think-president-obama-killed-andrew-bre
 
Not implying assassination obviously, but dying of natural causes at 43 is pretty peculiar.

EDIT: OK, I just wiki'd natural causes of death and for example heart attack is among them. I was under the impression that you'd have to have some part of you body expire of old age and as a result lead to death, for it to be a natural cause, but I see flaws in my reasoning now.
 
Veddy intesting. LOL at "typical Obama move".
 
Unfocused said:
Not implying assassination obviously, but dying of natural causes at 43 is pretty peculiar.

EDIT: OK, I just wiki'd natural causes of death and for example heart attack is among them. I was under the impression that you'd have to have some part of you body expire of old age and as a result lead to death, for it to be a natural cause, but I see flaws in my reasoning now.
Click to expand...



apparently he had an affinity for the nose candy

 
Come on, Republican candidates! Who will be the first to hysterically jump on this issue to fire up the party? Swing that base, baby.
 
RIP Andrew Breitbart. You will be missed. Have not always agreed with breitbart.com, but did more often than not. Either way, did some amazing work advancing news related social media.
 
And absolutely nothing of value was lost, he was a ****ing lunatic.

Also, sweet Jesus that's a lot of reaction images in one post.
Keep fighting the good fight, dog.
 
I don't understand. The guy was a monumental figure in the advancement of media and viral news, and a huge political figure.

I don't really care if you disagreed with his politics, he was to the right for 'internet exposes' what Michael Moore is to the left for 'movie documentaries.' You wouldn't see me cheering Moore's death despite vehemently disagreeing with his political views. Not saying anyone is doing that, but to say there is nothing of value or similar things is wrong. He advanced the concept and executed very well. AKA Game changer. I would consider him an important figure in the internet's history, like Matt Drudge or Ariana Huffington (polar opposites but just as influential as each other)
 
I'm genuinely wanting to know if Breitbart was assassinated. Apparantly reports that he was rushed to UCLA Medical Center are false, they admitted no one by his name.

He was just hours from releasing video that he stated would derail Obama's 2012 reelection. Supposedly video showing Obama meeting with Weather Underground terrorists and discussing conspiracies.

Somebody needs to find and release the video Breitbart was talking about ASAP. The dude literally keels over hours before the set release, it is now March 2nd (announced for release on March 1) and we still have nothing.

What's the deal here?
 
obviously obama had him assasinated. he was about to reveal Obama is [strike]a secret muslim[/strike] [strike]'nt american [/strike] black
 
IF that were the case, my money would be on Weather Underground being responsible. Apparantly he had JUST attended a dinner with Ayers and another individual (invited by Tucker Carlson of all people who won an auction for the dinner)

Things are very fishy, that's all I'll say. Hoping it was only natural causes, but if you investigate the final weeks and the circumstances all I can say is it's fishy.
 
Funny how people who are meant to be releasing a super important document/video will

always: announce their intention ahead of time and

never: have a ****ing contingency plan ready.

Yeah.
 
Bad^Hat said:
Funny how people who are meant to be releasing a super important document/video will

always: announce their intention ahead of time and

never: have a ****ing contingency plan ready.

Yeah.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone expects to just die suddenly hours before release.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
IF that were the case, my money would be on Weather Underground being responsible. Apparantly he had JUST attended a dinner with Ayers and another individual (invited by Tucker Carlson of all people who won an auction for the dinner)

Things are very fishy, that's all I'll say. Hoping it was only natural causes, but if you investigate the final weeks and the circumstances all I can say is it's fishy.
Click to expand...

when in doubt always pick the most far fetched explanation possible. or you could just surmise that he had a heart attack after having a history of heart related problems:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/307695/20120301/andrew-breitbart-cause-death-heart-attack-health.htm
 
That's probably what it is and I hope so (as bad as that sounds?)

It's just very strange the circumstances that preceeded this death. It's important to at least raise the question even if it's immediately answered that it wasn't foul play.
 
it's only strange to people who supported him (as witnessed by the comments in the OP). he was a loud mouthed windbag who was rumoured to have liked doing coke and had a history of cardiac problems
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
IF that were the case, my money would be on Weather Underground being responsible.
Click to expand...
...huh? The only death attributable to the mainstream WUO was one of their own members who was crap at making bombs. They gave evacuation warnings before bombings and did their utmost not to kill. You think now, when they've come over all establishment and have legitimate(d) lives in public, they're going to start organising assassinations?
 
Sulkdodds said:
...huh? The only death attributable to the mainstream WUO was one of their own members who was crap at making bombs. They gave evacuation warnings before bombings and did their utmost not to kill. You think now, when they've come over all establishment and have legitimate(d) lives in public, they're going to start organising assassinations?
Click to expand...

I believe people in positions of power, or influence/shared groupings with those in power, will do whatever it takes to keep that secure. Particularly the senior leadership of a group who would consider people like Breitbart their archenemy, not the way the consider an innocent civilian that happens to work in a state department building.


Aside from all that, the very fact that lunatics like Ayers and other Weather Underground members are accepted into acadamia and high society is ridiculous. These are people that set off bombs in government installations (including the Pentagon)
 
Dead tired of getting bad reception on his bannana phone whilst in the jungle!
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Aside from all that, the very fact that lunatics like Ayers and other Weather Underground members are accepted into acadamia and high society is ridiculous. These are people that set off bombs in government installations (including the Pentagon)
Click to expand...
You blame them? This was a time in which the government and the forces defending it were assassinating people. It was shooting protesters and shooting activists (and more). It was drafting citizens into a mad foreign war that had no justification. It was illegally harassing, spying on and raiding people who had the nerve to organise politically. We now know it was confining and abusing random citizens. In southern states it was actively depriving black people of the vote. There is continuing controversy over the possibility that it conspired in the murder of Martin Luther King.

What I'm saying is, this was a coercive government. The only reason these people are now "accepted into academia and high society" is because their conviction was ruined by the illegal tactics the FBI had used against them. I don't know that I agree with what they did, and they might have been crazy and stupid, but you have to put their actions in context. And, excepting a security van robbery by a splinter group towards the end of the movement, they didn't murder anyone, which is more than the police have managed since.

The idea that they'd abandon their second chance to assassinate a blogger is difficult to credit, not to mention without base. It's sad that a human being is dead, but the response to this indicates the return of the paranoid style to US politics.
 
Sulkdodds said:
You blame them? This was a time in which the government and the forces defending it were assassinating people. It was shooting protesters and shooting activists (and more). It was drafting citizens into a mad foreign war that had no justification. It was illegally harassing, spying on and raiding people who had the nerve to organise politically. We now know it was confining and abusing random citizens. In southern states it was actively depriving black people of the vote. There is continuing controversy over the possibility that it conspired in the murder of Martin Luther King.

What I'm saying is, this was a coercive government. The only reason these people are now "accepted into academia and high society" is because their conviction was ruined by the illegal tactics the FBI had used against them. I don't know that I agree with what they did, and they might have been crazy and stupid, but you have to put their actions in context. And, excepting a security van robbery by a splinter group towards the end of the movement, they didn't murder anyone, which is more than the police have managed since.

The idea that they'd abandon their second chance to assassinate a blogger is difficult to credit, not to mention without base. It's sad that a human being is dead, but the response to this indicates the return of the paranoid style to US politics.
Click to expand...
There is no defending the actions of the weather underground. They pushed, through bombings and subsequent armed rebellion, violent overthrow of the American government for the installation of a Communist regime. That is/was their stated goal, not some right wing rhetoric to discredit them. These people should never have been invited back to normal society. A legal case falling apart due to police or judicial bumbling does not undo what they did or what they believe. For example did OJ's murder charges falling apart mean he was any less obviously guilty of the crime? No. Complete disregard for legal process and the US constitution, and they should have been tried for treason.
 
The legal case didn't fall apart because of "bumbling" but because the government, police and federal agencies committed massive civil rights violations. They too were displaying "complete disregard for legal process and the US constitution" - the first amendment, the fourth, the sixth if you count assassination as an infringement of the right to a trial, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth. The whole point of the concept of 'inadmissible evidence' is that justice which does not follow the rules is not legitimate or valid justice. Likewise, I'm not saying that the WUO weren't guilty, but that their mistrial was a de facto admission by the government that it was not in a position to throw stones.

Granted, they weren't coming from a constitutionalist position of "we must now take up arms to force the government to follow its own rules". They were indeed explicitly aiming to overthrow "capitalist state power" and replace it with "socialist state power". But they were also facing a government and police which ignored the constitution and killed a whole lot more people than their deliberately and carefully non-lethal strategy ever did. Imagine living in that time and feeling that there was no possible recourse to legitimate channels because the government was blocking them. Imagine having your house ransacked by federal agents without any way of appealing, or witnessing the police assassination of Fred Hampton. I'm not saying what they did was right, but they were at the very least on equal moral footing with their enemy - and they deserve to be able to rejoin mainstream society as much as Henry Kissinger, who colluded in the massacres and assassinations of Operation Condor, or Barrack Obama, who ordered the assassination of American citizens on foreign soil without due process - or even those who succeeded in orchestrating the last century's many, many US-sponsored overthrows of other people's democratic constitutions.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't yet understand what makes the ex-WUO any worse on a constitutional level than certain respectable Americans, or worse on a moral level than even more.
 
Sulkdodds said:
The legal case didn't fall apart because of "bumbling" but because the government, police and federal agencies committed massive civil rights violations. They too were displaying "complete disregard for legal process and the US constitution" - the first amendment, the fourth, the sixth if you count assassination as an infringement of the right to a trial, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth. The whole point of the concept of 'inadmissible evidence' is that justice which does not follow the rules is not legitimate or valid justice. Likewise, I'm not saying that the WUO weren't guilty, but that their mistrial was a de facto admission by the government that it was not in a position to throw stones.

Granted, they weren't coming from a constitutionalist position of "we must now take up arms to force the government to follow its own rules". They were indeed explicitly aiming to overthrow "capitalist state power" and replace it with "socialist state power". But they were also facing a government and police which ignored the constitution and killed a whole lot more people than their deliberately and carefully non-lethal strategy ever did. Imagine living in that time and feeling that there was no possible recourse to legitimate channels because the government was blocking them. Imagine having your house ransacked by federal agents without any way of appealing, or witnessing the police assassination of Fred Hampton. I'm not saying what they did was right, but they were at the very least on equal moral footing with their enemy - and they deserve to be able to rejoin mainstream society as much as Henry Kissinger, who colluded in the massacres and assassinations of Operation Condor, or Barrack Obama, who ordered the assassination of American citizens on foreign soil without due process - or even those who succeeded in orchestrating the last century's many, many US-sponsored overthrows of other people's democratic constitutions.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't yet understand what makes the ex-WUO any worse on a constitutional level than certain respectable Americans, or worse on a moral level than even more.
Click to expand...
The only legitimate US revolution that would not be treason is one that seeks to force the government to abide by the US Constitution. Intentional legislation and abuse of seperation of powers that violate the constitution purposely should be seen as seditious activity as well. It's one thing when an issue is iffy and a court has to make a controversial ruling that something is or isn't constitutional. It's another when things blatantly fly in the face of the constitution and are allowed to do so.

Now, seeking to install, through bloody violence, the violent overthrow of the elected government, not to return democracy and freedom of choice but instead to install a communist government is purely treason. To say the WU led to no violence is completely wrong. These people were instrumental in feeding violence and race riots, particularly Detroit, etc. Any urban unrest, WO was there to help stir the pot with the hope of creating mayhem so they could capitalize on it and induce revolution. They didn't care who's homes were destroyed, who was robbed and raped in the streets, etc. These people are traitors.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
The only legitimate US revolution that would not be treason is one that seeks to force the government to abide by the US Constitution. Intentional legislation and abuse of seperation of powers that violate the constitution purposely should be seen as seditious activity as well. It's one thing when an issue is iffy and a court has to make a controversial ruling that something is or isn't constitutional. It's another when things blatantly fly in the face of the constitution and are allowed to do so.

Now, seeking to install, through bloody violence, the violent overthrow of the elected government, not to return democracy and freedom of choice but instead to install a communist government is purely treason. To say the WU led to no violence is completely wrong. These people were instrumental in feeding violence and race riots, particularly Detroit, etc. Any urban unrest, WO was there to help stir the pot with the hope of creating mayhem so they could capitalize on it and induce revolution. They didn't care who's homes were destroyed, who was robbed and raped in the streets, etc. These people are traitors.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're referring to. Who was raped as a result of Weather Underground actions? What Detroit riots are you referring to, and were they really any more "instrumental" than the police, the economy, or other factions? You make them sound like they were the dark puppeteers behind every riot of the 60s and 70s. And yet unless I'm sorely mistaken their main riot action was the 'Days of Rage', which attracted no broad support, was perpetrated mainly by themselves, and which completely divided them from the rest of the counterculture movement of the time. Far from sneakily "stirring the pot", they made their bed and then had to lie alone in it. Your words sound more like froth than fact.

You're right about one thing: they were traitors. They were not leading a constitutional revolution. But if you set up a state based on the rule of law, you have to stick to it. The rules for trials and charges are a safeguard that ensures the government is honest and accountable in its prosecution of criminals; it's absolutely right that if they break them the case should be forfeit. That is the price of acting extra-legally, and responsibility for the consequences lies at least in part with those who let that happen.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I'm genuinely wanting to know if Breitbart was assassinated. Apparantly reports that he was rushed to UCLA Medical Center are false, they admitted no one by his name.

He was just hours from releasing video that he stated would derail Obama's 2012 reelection. Supposedly video showing Obama meeting with Weather Underground terrorists and discussing conspiracies.

Somebody needs to find and release the video Breitbart was talking about ASAP. The dude literally keels over hours before the set release, it is now March 2nd (announced for release on March 1) and we still have nothing.

What's the deal here?
Click to expand...

Genuine tinfoilery. Meet the new Kathaksung, same as the old Kathaksung.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top