Losing vs. Tyranny

Posted on 04/08/2009 at 3:24 pm by Bob Cesca

By the way, notice that Breitbart is a socialist. Or at least he sends his kid to a publicly-funded education facility financed with a system whereby wealth is redistributed from property-owners to everyone else regardless of whether or not they own property. Why does Breitbart hate America?

This entry was posted in Wingnuts and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • GItheJOE

    Breitbart was sucking the dick of Limbaugh on Real Time. This man is saying shit to get traffic to his start up conservative blog.

  • 24hourjack

    its so hard for me to enjoy the sheer perfection of those six minutes while simultaneously overwhelmed by anger and bewilderment.its only going to get worse.fox ratings are going through the roof.the sillier they act,the more douchey venom they spew,the more the wingnuts tune in.

  • ElMystico

    Okay, a little OT but there’s this c*ntbag moron David Rivkin who used to work for the early bush is being a lying piece of shit on hardball right now and it’s pissing me off.We’re making ourselves less safe to curry favor with europe!The people Bush/Cheney released people from Guantanamo and that’s okay, but if we let people out of Guantanamo grr argh terror! Also Europe wants us to do it but why won’t they take our prisoners? Why must Obama make us less safe to make Europe like us?What did we do on September 10th to deserve 9/11?Biden is more vitriolic than Cheney… see that’s just against the laws of physics.My questions for Mr Rivkin:Can you ask a question without constructing a false dilemma?No seriously, could you try it, just once?Even if we were closing Guantanamo or whatever else to make Europe happy…Why wouldn’t we want our closest allies to like and respect us?Also that’s not why we’re doing it. You do realize you made that up in your head, right?You realize that people liking Obama in Europe wasn’t just because of Guantanamo, and also that the two aren’t necessarily related just because he ordered the closing (two months) before he went there?Are you familiar with the logical fallacy ‘pro hoc ergo propter hoc’? I learned it on the West Wing. You should maybe look it up.Also, for an ugly douchebag with owl glasses who couldn’t win a serious debate with a drowsy middle schooler, why are you so smug?

  • D. C.

    For them, losing is tyranny. Just listen to their rhetoric. They actually think that they should still get their way in everything even though they got trounced.

  • BlueFan

    @ D.C.:This link says it all, and quite nicely……http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/05/james-wolcott200905

  • http://www.introspectiveliar.blogspot.com Lulu

    I am so tired of this right wing spittle sprayed in my face every time I turn on the TV. I’m exceedingly glad people like Stewart are pointing it out for the crap that it is, but with half of TV continuously spewing this poison and the other half endlessly replaying the spew in order to debunk it, I am about to resort to watching reruns of Green Acres on TV Land network. Will we ever get back to news shows reporting the news and comedy shows making fun of the unimportant? A vague memory of mine from very long ago.

  • rogect8

    As per usual, Stewart says it best.Lulu’s right though – it’s sad that the 24 hour news channels have created a situation where a comedian has to be the one pointing out how patently ridiculous this stuff really is.

  • mmortal03

    Stewart’s losing vs. tyranny point is a good one, but regarding the “Breitbart is a socialist” jab (because his kids go to public school), Stewart’s very same argument can be used to show how lame that jab really is (however sarcastic it might have been, Bob).Like Stewart said, we live in a democracy, and I’ll take his line of thought one step further. Yes, we do live in a democracy, we live under a system built up over a LONG period of time, by way of democratic means, such that public education has been forced upon and dominated the market, such that cheap private schools nationwide aren’t really viable. Therefore, it would be an undue burden to ask of those who disagree with these circumstances to send their kids to private schools.Not to mention that by law we can’t choose to be exempted from paying for our public schools, so it would be ridiculous to ask of someone who is being forced by law to pay for something, to not use it because he doesn’t agree with the policy, or be called a hypocrite.Here’s another example: I don’t support the United States subsidizing oil. Should the argument be, by those who do support these, that I should either somehow choose to personally pay higher prices on oil when I fill up my car, or I’m a hypocrite?