Real World Examples of Liberal Brotherly Love

Andrew Breitbart died on March 1, 2012. Yesterday in the news was the report that the coroner has rules his death to be heart failure. I could guess what sort of things liberal types might say, and I went to see for myself. Here are some examples.

Politico

• God rid the earth of this scum. Thanks God!

CNN

• A black heart filled with hate and lies always stops.

• I call this a good start!

• like with Cheney I am in shock that these guys even had a heart to begin with.

L.A. Times

• Sadly, I believe that Andrew Breitbart died of anger, bitterness, and hatred. All the man ever exuded was negative emotions. Eventually, that kind of non-stop emotional poison takes a toll on a person’s health. Now a wife is widowed and four young kids have no father. Breitbart’s death is a cautionary tale for all of us: Don’t live a life full of anger and hate. It will kill you.

• The surprising aspect of his death is that such a vicious liar and charlaton had ever had a heart at any point during his time on this earth. I do not wish to sound vindictive and callous as this miserable creep was, but I am at a loss to recall any single redeeming quality or postive non-self serving act in his entire public life.

I’m sure there will be more. And to be fair, there will likely be conservative commentators who say nasty things in reply. But this is the way some liberals think, and I think that is something to remember next time you hear them talking about caring about people. Don’t make blind accusations. I’m not saying that. I am suggesting you might ask them about people like Breitbart and see what they say. They might be nice or they might not. But you’ll get a better idea of their motivations.

Liberals might complain that conservatives so this too. Yes. I’ve tried listening to Michael Savage. Life is too short to listen to someone disgorge that kind of inane anger.

Character matters people, that is all I’m really saying. Don’t preach “love your neighbor” to me and then spew hate about your neighbor. It cuts your credibility off at the knees.

27 Responses to “Real World Examples of Liberal Brotherly Love”

  1. So I take it you mourned the death of Osama Bin Laden? And you probably celebrated the death of Ted Kennedy like most of the right-wingers out there.

    • Still angry I see. And still making unfounded accusations. I did not celebrate Ted Kennedy’s death. I do confess I did not mourn bin Laden’s death, but neither did I celebrate it. And I’m not really a right-winger either.

      • That’s good you didn’t celebrate Ted Kennedy’s death, but a lot of right-wingers did.

        • I’m sure they did. I probably ignored most of it just like I will ignore most the nasty comments about Andrew Breitbart. In any case, as I said before, if you preach “love your neighbor” to me and then spew hate about your neighbor, it cuts your credibility off at the knees. I’m not saying anyone has to like Breitbart, or Kennedy, Limbaugh, Maher, or any number of other polarizing figures. But not liking someone does not mean one then has to be nasty about them. Most of the time, we do not actually know these people, even though we think we do. Breitbart might have been a very nice man on an ordinary personal level. I’m guessing his wife and children miss him. Being nasty about him says far more about the people being nasty than it does about anything Breitbart did.

          • I’m sure his family does miss him, but as a public figure, do you feel that Breitbart made this world a better or worse place?

          • Better on the whole. He did say some mean things I think he should not have said. But he helped change the media and the dynamic of discussion in the public arena in a way that brings more people into it. And that is a good thing.

            I would also argue that had he done the same things but with a left-wing bias, most of the people now gleeful at his death would be hailing him as someone who “spoke truth to power” and all kind of stuff like that there. And probably there would be conservatives saying nasty things about him now. And I would be complaining about them.

          • Breitbart was a pathological liar who celebrated the death of Ted Kennedy. His career was based on stirring up hatred and fear and he lied to do it. He was a piece of garbage.

          • That is mean and unnecessary.

            Here is a hint: I do not listen to Michael Savage any more, and the more your comments remind me of him, the less I want to see of them.

  2. I just checked out the rest of your blog. It’s nothing but complaining. But that’s all you right-wingers know how to do.

    • Given the nature of your blog, and many of your comments here, I believe you have no grounds to, ahem, complain about other people complaining.

      And again, I’m not really a right-winger. Which you should know if you have checked out the rest of my blog.

      • Uh, oh… now you’re getting angry. And we all know how emotional you right-wingers are. 🙂

        • I am not angry at all. I am just wondering why you both complain about lies and keep saying untrue things.

          • And name one thing I said that wasn’t true.

          • That I am right-wing.

          • As far as I can tell, you’re a libertarian, which is a right-wing ideology. Are you telling me you’re a left of center?

          • No. I’m telling you libertarianism is not right-wing. Your understanding is too small. In terms relatable to the one dimensional left-right spectrum, libertarians are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Which is to say, more appropriately, we believe in fiscal and personal liberty for the individual. And that is, in effect, outside the traditional left to right political spectrum model.

          • In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
            ~ William F. Buckley

            It depends on what definition you use. From what I can tell, the biggest difference is libertarians don’t support an authoritarian government, but even if you don’t directly support it, that is where your policies lead us. When you have a laissez-faire attitude by the government, big money takes over, and fascism is the merging of corporations with government.

          • Fascism is a little more complex than that.

            Anyway, Look up “liberaltarian” sometime.

            What system we have we got? Regulations that stifle competition for big corporations, corporate lobbyists and politicians creating special rules for corporations, corporate subsidies and corporate bailouts. The system we have now is far closer to a merger of corporations and government than a laissez-faire system would be. So no, libertarian ideas do not lead to authoritarian policy. What leads to authoritarianism policy is authoritarian ideas, i.e. that top-down government control is the only solution.

          • Lack of regulation is what gave corporations all that power. We need some trust busting to break up the huge conglomerates. Deregulation led to the giant banks engaging in high stakes gambling and the need for the bailouts.

          • Um, no. If we had no regulations, or even perhaps a handful or so, you might have a point. Lack of regulations, however, is the opposite of what we have. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of regulations on the books. Corporations get power from the partnering of corporations and government. And we have already discussed the banks (in a previous discussion), so all I will say there is, the bailouts were not needed and serve as glaring proof of the already existing and quite strong partnership between corporations and the government.

          • Sure, the bailouts weren’t needed, unless you wanted to keep our entire economy from totally collapsing, as well as the world economy.

          • I have not seen a good reason to assume that our economy would have collapsed without the bailouts. I know a lot of people have said it would, but I have not seen any facts to support the claim. Apocalyptic speculations yes, but facts no. In any case, as I said before, the bailouts serve as glaring proof of the already existing and quite strong partnership between corporations and the government. Nothing says “government has your back, corporations” like handing massive amounts of taxpayer money to the corporations.

  3. I have not seen a good reason to assume that our economy would have collapsed without the bailouts.

    Where did you look? All you need to do is look at the stock market to see where our country was heading.

    • A down stock market would not be proof of impending collapse of our entire economy. It has had major losses many times without the entire economy collapsing.

      • Regulations don’t hurt businesses. We’ve had regulation before without businesses being hurt. 🙂

        • Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Your second statement does not logically follow the first one. And your comment does not refute what I said. I did not say a stock market drop would not have negative consequences. I said it would not be proof of the impending collapse of our entire economy. Saying that a bad thing happening is not the end of the world is not a claim that the bad thing is not bad.

  4. There is a Frontline episode on TV tonight about the bailouts. You should watch it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: