The Breitbart Laptop Lie & How Liberals Spread It

I’ve always been interested in Urban Legends since I first saw author Jan Harold Brunvand on the old NBC David Letterman show. It’s interesting how untruths spread and it’s even more interesting now that we can track them online.

I’ve already shown conclusively that Little Green Footballs author Charles Johnson was totally wrong in a really humiliating way by claiming that Andrew Breitbart’s laptop is actually a menu board out in the front of the restaurant.

This lie is part of a story that liberals are trying to spin, desperate to find SOME way to prove Andrew Breitbart is wrong on the #Weinergate story. The idea is to prove that Breitbart was totally careless with the Weiner XXX picture – so lax that he left it out on a laptop screen in public!

lgf-lap

Johnson drives this point home with TWO mentions in his short, embarrassingly wrong article. And with over 2,000 retweets and 400+ comments, not one liberal reader of Little Green Footballs even NOTICED that the ‘laptop’ is a frickin’ MENU BOARD. Not one.

lgf-lapmenu

They can’t all be stupid – but they are all that biased.

So full of hate for Breitbart that their eyes don’t work. So misguided by someone like Charles Johnson pandering to their worst instincts that they don’t even question someone leaving an open laptop out on the streets of New York City with a photo of the Most Famous Woody in America sitting on the screen.

Nobody grabbed a photo of that? No New Yorkers stopped and grab a snapshot? The story doesn’t even make sense, even if you missed the laptop / menu board thing.

Why no correction or retraction? Charles Johnson WANTS the lie to spread. That’s clear. He knows it isn’t try and goes with it not in spite of the fact it’s a wrong. He spreads it BECAUSE it’s wrong.

Thousands of liberals saw that photo and suspending their rational judgment and eyesight in favor of pure hate. That’s the EXACT same mistake they made that caused them to get Weinergate so totally wrong. They haven’t learned a ding-dong thing.

And worse – some of them blog about this discredited, obviously false, totally far-fetched “Breitbart Laptop” idea that Johnson still refuse to correct. This is how stupid spreads on the left.

Balloon Juice

It’s a mystery how it got out, what with Breitbart going to bars and leaving his laptop open with pictures of Weiner’s component parts on full display for everyone.

Taylor Marsh

Now, giving Andrew Breitbart control over your life because you were stupid is Rep. Weiner’s own fault. But any notion that Breitbart was going to uphold his words on the “Today” show, where he said he’d hold the photo as insurance in case Weiner went after him, should be at the very least questioned, while I admit to believing he leaked it on purpose, no matter what he says.

Hinterland Gazette

All I can say to Andrew Breitbart is make sure your backyard is clean because they are gunning for your fall from grace too. One more thing, how many heterosexual men walk around with a picture of another man’s penis on their laptop or cellphones? Could he be a closeted homosexual? This is a disgrace. The photograph has since been removed.

One final point – given the cover-up and smear campaign against Andrew Breitbart that Rep. Anthony Weiner actively engaged in, I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for Weiner that Breitbart has shown the photo to a few people. Breitbart could have published it and didn’t. Breitbart isn’t running for Saint – he’s got a photo that millions of people who want to see and he’s shown it to a few people. Big deal. Karma, dude. Rep. Weiner got himself into a position where his genitals are in the news media.

What do you think Charles Johnson or Gawker would do if they had a nude photo of Andrew Breitbart or Ann Coulter? It wouldn’t just be on a cell phone, that’s for damn sure. The Hinterland comment makes that clear.

51 Comments

  1. I think that a lot of people just find it a tad disingenuous when Breitbart jumps up to the podium at Weiner’s press conference and screams “I’m doing this to save his family!!!” Come on.

    Breitbart is the go-to guy if you’ve got dirt on the left. If a government worker on his side of the political spectrum had naughty photos, I kinda doubt he’d be parading them around. At least admit that.

    He doesn’t do things like this in the name of “truth”, he does it in the name of scoring points for his side.

    Reply
  2. YoYo, so even though Breitbart got the story correct the fact that he’s right leaning diminishes the story for you? Truth somehow stops being the truth if there’s also a secondary motive involved? It doesn’t bother you at all that Weiner flatly denied his own involvement while he falsely and publicly accused Breitbart of hacking? In other words, you would prefer never to have known about what Weiner’s been doing since you dislike Breitbart so much?

    That’s sure the implication your comment leaves one with.

    Reply
  3. I think you’re suggesting things that aren’t in my post.

    When Breitbart jumps up on the podium at someone else’s press conference and screams “I am doing this to save his family!!” do you believe him?

    I think that statement alone diminishes his personal credibility.

    Reply
  4. Breitbart could just have admitted that he is out to get people on the left…no one would have cared. But he is trying so hard to be taken seriously. If you are trying to be taken seriously as a journalist do you really jump up on the podium at a press conference and swear that you are trying to “save” the man whose career you just tanked?

    Reply
  5. YoYo, I ‘m not a person who gets into blog fights or engages in long give and take with other commenters who I don’t know, so I will not do that with you. I guess I could cut and paste my original comment (#2) from this thread and repost it here in response to your question. But respectfully I will not do that and instead just say that my previous comment stands and covers exactly what I consider to be the salient points concerning Mr. Weiner and Mr. Breitbart and the meaning of the word “truth”. Cheers.

    Reply
  6. I think most people acknowledge Weiner’s wrongdoing. My point was Breitbart strains for credibility when he makes ridiculous claims like “I am doing this to save his family.” You keep ignoring that for some reason in both of your comments. You don’t have to do a “back and forth” but at least agree or disagree with the main (only) point from the original comment.

    Reply
  7. Also, why is it that people online always tack this onto their rebuttals “Hey, I don’t get into arguments with people online. I’m above that. So don’t even bother!” Ok, then why do you bother responding to a comment that never addressed you personally in the first place? If you disagree with me, that’s fine.

    But if you are going to post your opinion online, then you’re going to have to accept that people might respond negatively to it. If you don’t want criticism, then don’t throw your opinion out there in the first place.

    Reply
  8. Shut up already yoyo. If Weiner didn’t want people look at his member he shouldn’t have taken pictures of it an sent it out to complete strangers. How do we know that the ladies who received these photos weren’t out showing it off to their friends as well?

    Not to mention that you guys constantly get everything wrong about this story, well most stories. This story is going to get even worse if people keep digging. When we find out he was also having inappropriate relationships with minors I’m sure the first thing the left will start talking about is Breitbart. Deflect, obfuscate, smokescreen what ever you want to call you guys spend way to much time in denial.

    Just admit that Breitbart is effectively destroying the left and that’s why you actually hate him. We all know progressives don’t believe in family values and when ever necessary they claim to have no morals so why pretend like you do now.

    When will we get back to the Koch brothers being the boogeyman of the day. Or was it Dick Army oh no it wasn’t him it was Bush, I mean Cheney. You guys are pathetic Breitbart is just showing that to the world and that’s why you hate him.

    Reply
  9. Yoyo,
    There’s a difference between “tanking someones career” and “reporting on a congressman’s self destruction.”
    That said, I understand why you don’t believe that Breitbart was withholding the picture to “save his family,” but I took that a different way than you did. When Breitbart broke the story, there was about a nanosecond before the left was accusing him of hacking weiners account. Had weiner admitted it immediately (Christopher Lee resigned the day the story broke, if not the next day) there would have been no more pictures.

    Breitbart posted enough to let weiner know that he wasn’t bullshitting. Once those went up, weiner confessed. It may have been breitbarts “plan” to get him to resign, but you’re assigning malicious intent with nothing more than, “well, I think he did it on purpose.”

    And yes, while Breitbart didn’t break the craigslist-congressman story, he did report it. As did all the other right-wing sources. There was no “daily kos hacked his email!” bullshit defense. Just good riddance to bad rubbish (a lesson those on the left should learn).

    As for this, you’re willing to believe it because its another reason to hate the guy. Which is weird. When someone earns my hate, I can provide accurate lists with specified dates on what horrendous thing this person has done to wrong me, my friends, or my country. I hate achmadidiwhackjob because he advocates murdering jews. What I never have to do is say, “and he probably molests little boys, since I don’t agree with him.”

    Seriously, if you hate someone, you shouldn’t need to make up reasons to hate them. If you do, maybe you should rethink your hatred.

    We’re never going to solve anything if one side of the country hates the other. Maybe since I don’t live in the south, I’ve never encountered the “I hate all you liberal hippie pot smokin faggots!” type. I live in Oregon, and the most hateful closedminded people I meet are liberal open-minded college students. Which, as a libertarian, is extremely depressing, because we’re left with only the republicans not hating us (just laughing at us for being stuck choosing the lesser of two evils).

    Reply
  10. Mark, thanks for being the only person to at least address my point.

    I don’t like Breitbart because I feel like he is less than honest when he comes out with these exposes. When he says things like “I am doing this to save his family” he makes himself look ridiculous. Not Weiner ridiculous but pretty ridiculous.

    As for living in Oregon with extreme lefties…sorry. Most of us are not like that. I am pretty a pretty moderate liberal and I get annoyed by the wingnuts from that area as well, but its not realistic to put all liberals in that same box. I am also from the south. I don’t think all conservatives are knuckle-dragging racists, but unfortunately I have heard my fair share of racist shit coming out of the mouths of right-wingers.

    When you go to a Breitbart site, the tone is basically “Liberals are all a bunch of lying freaks who hate families and America.” That is why most people don’t take him seriously. It is weird to hear people say things like “Liberals are all intolerant liars.” Do people really believe that? Do you really think that things like unions and civil rights are evil plans made up by liberals to enslave society? Be honest.

    Reply
  11. @johnny

    so do you believe that breitbart is trying to save weiner’s family? can you answer the question or just go off on tangents?

    Reply
  12. Yoyo, Breitbart is the best thing that has happened to journalism since the invention of the typewriter. The list of all of his truly groundbreaking accomplishments is long. Go ahead and nitpick, though.
    I would say that showing a photo to your friends, when it is easily the biggest political story of the year, maybe more, is understandable. Breitbart was clear about not having it published, and he didn’t. Nitpick away.

    Reply
  13. Yoyo,
    I enjoy a good debate.
    Anyway, living in progressive central (not just the northwest, but my mothers house specifically), I learned early on that conservatives are evil and dangerous. My first real friend in high school was a diehard conservative, and he was neither evil or dangerous. Early on, I would have answered your question, “yes. They lie about damn near everything.”

    Now, I’m 30, and most of my friends are liberals (who all started out hating me because they knew I had voted for Bush), and I can say no, liberals are not all liars. They’ve just been lied to.

    There are people in this world who are very deserving of the hate aimed at them. However, in this country, we throw “hate” around like fuckin beads at mardi gras. We should be angry, but hate? Hate causes you to say things like, “I know that’s a menu sign, but I’ll say it was a computer, because I hate him.” Hate, as evidenced by dkos, salon, et al, causes you to doubt your own eyes because the guy you hate said the sky is blue.

    It also causes blind devotion, intellectual dishonesty, and simultaneous constipation and diarrhea.

    Reply
  14. By the way, “intolerant” is a bullshit term. We should all be intolerant of murderers, kid touchers, rapists, thieves, and the various scum of society. We also shouldn’t “tolerate” homosexuality.

    We should accept it. Tolerance is when your dog shits on the rug, and you don’t murder it. Tolerance is when your brother is hooked on meth, but you put up with him at Christmas. Tolerance implies that there’s reason to not tolerate it.

    We’re all intolerant. We need to be more accepting.

    Reply
  15. @wood…

    so true! before breitbart came along the notion of a political sex scandal was unheard of! i’d go as far as to say the guy invented conservative journalism singlehandedly. bravo, sir!

    Reply
  16. I keep hearing/reading people say “If this were a conservative politician Breitbart wouldn’t have covered it”… If this were a conservative politician Breitbart wouldn’t HAVE to cover it, the MSM would be ALL OVER it, and that’s the whole point. Rep.Chris Lee, anyone? Breitbart has exposed the real story here, which is the hypocrisy and double-standard of a left-wing dinosaur mainstream media. And, as Stranahan deftly points out, that’s why people are so pissed at him, instead of focusing on who’s really at fault here, Weiner.

    Reply
  17. I think that a lot of people just find it a tad disingenuous when Breitbart jumps up to the podium at Weiner’s press conference and screams “I’m doing this to save his family!!!” Come on.

    I think it’s disingenuous when people make things like that up. I’ve watched it twice and that didn’t happen.

    Reply
  18. When Breitbart jumps up on the podium at someone else’s press conference and screams “I am doing this to save his family!!” do you believe him?

    A lie repeated may be a more widely believed lie, but it’s still a lie. The Breitbart portion of the Breitbart/Weiner press conference is here. Could you direct us to the timestamp where the screaming starts? I don’t think you can, but I invite you to try.

    Reply
  19. Bravo, mark. Hear, hear.

    Yoyo, discussion of Breitbart’s credibility at this time is foolish. He was right. You can also try to question his motivations but the response is going to be “so what?” If someone says something truthful, their motivation and credibility is entirely irrelevant. The desperation of people like LGF to call in to question Breibart’s credibility and motivation is backfiring on them, and hard. They look like petty, bitter fools. Wait until you have something to actually go after or people start to question your motivations and your credibility.

    Reply
  20. I have long suspected Breitbart to be gay and could not care less.

    It’s him him being a liar, asshole, racist, fraud, born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple qualities that I find so repulsive,

    Outta here for a time folks. Peace and good health to all. I’ll likely be back.

    Oh, and Breitbart still has no credibility. None.

    Reply
  21. If you watch the video and cannot hear him claim “I am doing this to save his family” (a little after the ten minute mark) then I’m not sure how else I can make you believe it. It’s also been quoted by dozens of news sources but I’m sure you’ll just dismiss them as the “lamestream media.”

    I think it is relevant to discuss his credibility. He wasn’t taken seriously at first when this came out because of all the ridiculous shit from his past. Then he turned out to be right. Do we believe everything we read in the National Enquirer just because they got the Edwards story right? I think most people don’t take that source seriously despite their catch.

    Reply
  22. I’m just saying your timing is all wrong. Discuss Breitbart’s credibility or motivations when you have something to latch on to. Him saying “I’m doing this for Weiner’s family” just isn’t a big deal. LGF tried to attack Breitbart’s credibility and had to doctor a quote to make him look like he was saying something he didn’t and then misinterpret a picture to make him look like he’s breaching a prior promise which was never made in the first place. So here’s the consequence:

    Breitbart comes out looking even better because he’s the victim of a provably false slander by LGF. If this is the first someone has heard of Breitbart, they’re going to take his side. You’re bound to push sympathetic lefties to the other side if they value truth over knee-jerk partisanship. LGF loses even more of the little credibility they have remaining. Your own motivations are questioned. Everything turns out the opposite of what you were trying to achieve.

    I’m not telling you to stop questioning Breitbart. Do it. When you find some provable lies, scream them from the rooftops, like you did incessantly before. But don’t do it now. The timing is not right. As much as it must kill you to see Breitbart be proven right, just suck it up for a few weeks and go after him later. You’ll preserve your own credibility and people won’t question your own motivations.

    Reply
  23. Do we believe everything we read in the National Enquirer just because they got the Edwards story right?

    Actully, the Enqirer has a very good track record. Not perfect, but better than its detractors think. Breitbart, on the other hand, is a lying circus freak. He didn’t do any reporting on this one. He was nothing but a conduit. This is no vindication for him.

    Reply
  24. I think it is relevant to discuss his credibility. He wasn’t taken seriously at first when this came out because of all the ridiculous shit from his past.

    …by people who despise him and have a rather loose definition of “ridiculous shit”. Where does the screaming start, yoyo? You said it twice. Where is it?

    Reply
  25. Jharp, convenient that you stop back by without answering to your previous lies, which were definitively proven to be lies, in the comments section: http://leestranahan.com/what-do-weiners-women-all-have-in-common

    C’mon jharp, as I told you earlier, their is ample evidence that you are a liar.

    The difference between you and Breitbart is that you have no evidence to prove that he is what you proclaim him to be.

    Jharp, we are still waiting for a story from a journalist (DKos doesn’t count) that proves him to be a liar, or a racist, or a fraud. Remember when Breitbart challenged an entire room of journalists to prove even ONE lie? Had time to read the transcript yet?

    Good times jharp.

    Reply
  26. “Breitbart, on the other hand, is a lying circus freak He didn’t do any reporting on this one. He was nothing but a conduit. This is no vindication for him.”
    Still waiting for someone to prove Breitbart significantly lied about, well, anything. See, what Lee has done here is point at specific examples of “a lie” told by Charles Johnson. What I keep hearing is “breitbarts a big meanie lying liar face!” but I think I’ve figured out why:

    When people said the tea party was racist, astroturf, anti-government, yada yada, it was because they had never seen an actual protest where signs aren’t premade, were dumbass slogans aren’t being chanted, and the lack of violence.

    When the media says “breitbart deceptively edited the sherrod video,” its because its the only way THEY would be able to do it. How can we know this? Because they deceptively edit breitbarts article to cut out the part where he says “eventually her basic humanity compelled her to help the man.”

    He didn’t do any reporting on this? This is no vindication? Really? For ten days to be accused of internet fraud, hacking, conspiracy to take down a congressman, and then be found out to be telling the truth?

    How news reporting happens: something happens and the reporter says “hey, that happened.” Sometimes, if its juicy enough, the journalist could investigate. And yeah, news people are conduits. Or do you prefer your reporters just making shit up? Reporters are conduits between the story and us. Breitbart reported the facts, even the fact that weiner claimed he was hacked. You know what isn’t reporting? “The story has caused quite a war on the blogosphere. Let’s take a look at what they’re saying.” Which (not verbatim) is what CNN was saying. That was their story.

    I’m sorry no one has explained these things to you before.

    Reply
  27. jharp June 10, 2011 at 12:41 am “I have long suspected Breitbart to be gay and could not care less.”

    That’s impossible. If you didn’t care about Breitbarts sexuality, then you wouldn’t suspect him to be gay, especially for a long time. You do care, which says way more about you than it does about him.

    Is it because he supports gay marriage and is on the board of GOProud? Are you now saying that support of gay marriage makes you gay?

    Fucking homophobes.

    Reply
  28. Actually, I do think the claim that Breitbart’s reason that he wasn’t going to publish the worst picture in order to spare Weiner’s family some embarrassment was a bit disingenuous in a fairly minor way. There are probably other reasons at play. Does it topple his credibility? Of course not, and anybody who says otherwise needs his perspective meter recalibrated.

    Weiner said he was hacked- blaming somebody else for his misdeeds. He tried to destroy Breitbart’s entire career for what he himself did, essentially playing the part of Nero at the burning of Rome. He offered professional PR help to women he sexted (which is highly likely to be a misuse of taxpayer funds), and he creepily got his ex girlfriend Kristin Powers to go on television and cover up for him, even when he knew he was guilty. he showed the horrendously bad judgment of sending compromising pictures of himself to total strangers via the internet, and then went to great lengths and extreme dishonesty and attacks on others to deflect blame- showing that he is a ripe, ripe target for blackmail and thus, a security risk. His interview with ABC where he was scathingly dismissive, insisted it was disgusting of ABC to even ask him a question about following minor girls on Twitter and possibly having private convos with them- THAT’s disingenuous, slimy, and twisted.

    Breitbart saying he was holding back a picture to save the family further embarrassment? Piffle. To a thinking and fairminded person, that doesn’t change the facts on the ground one bit.

    In fact, you know what else is disingenuous? YoYo claiming that *this* is what damages Breitbart’s credibility for him. Balogna. It’s obvious Yoyo’s going to find some excuse to marginalize Breitbart no matter what, and it’s totally disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise.

    Reply
  29. So, just to check… does everyone on this board take Breitbart at his word, that he had no idea that him showing those Opie/Anthony photos would be taped/photographed?

    Reply
  30. Yes. You can watch the video yourself to see how it transpired. Furthermore, the image is blurry. Had it been a setup, don’t you think they would have at least captured the shot in all its glory?

    Reply
  31. As long as you’re asking, yeah, I take him at his word.

    If Breitbart wanted the pic leaked, there’s 1000 other ways, with greater exposure and more plausible deniability than passing his cell phone in front of a camera on a radio show.

    Reply
  32. Wow. A day later and some people still cruising in to this thread armed with the same talking point to try to make it about all Andrew Breitbart instead of about Anthony Weiner and Charles Johnson. Obvious and pathetic attempts to deflect and change the subject. And no attempt to even address the main point of Lee’s post. Just sad.

    Reply
  33. Its not breitbarts word alone. Its also the word of anthony cumia, opie, and their producer. Its looking at the video. Yeah, he knew it would get out. But he didn’t want to be the one to leak it. He proved his point. It wasn’t his mission to humiliate weiner to the point where he can’t even save his marriage, his mission was to expose the truth.

    Seriously, if you hate the guy so much, you shouldn’t have to come up with reasons to hate him. And if you don’t believe what he says, fine. But honestly, that shouldn’t rest on his politics. Lee is a liberal, but I believe what he says when it comes to facts.

    Reply
  34. Outside Observer, I do have some reservations about the idea that Breitbart had no idea somebody would do exactly what they did. So? Are you saying that Opie, Cumia, and their producer are also lying to cover for Breitbart?

    If all of these unelected personalities are lying about how that photo got published, in what way does that mitigate anything Weiner has done? Everything he said about Weiner has been vindicated and even worse details have come out about Weiner- an elected official who makes laws for the rest of us, gets paid by our money, and doesn’t show the good judgment and discretion of your average 16 year old boy, and is clearly willing to throw his cyber gal pals under the bus, contrary to his allegedly pro-woman stance.

    I see why you’d rather make the story about Breitbart, but it’s not. It’s about the media acting like its real job is publicity agent for Democrats, and a congressman acting like a 13 year old boy who just discovered sex and the internet.

    Reply
  35. “If you didn’t care about Breitbarts sexuality, then you wouldn’t suspect him to be gay, especially for a long time. You do care, which says way more about you than it does about him.”

    Utter nonsense. I don’t care if he fucks chickens. It is none of my business.

    “Is it because he supports gay marriage and is on the board of GOProud? Are you now saying that support of gay marriage makes you gay?”

    No and no. 50% of Americans support gay marriage. Are you saying that 50% of Americans are gay?

    God you people are stupid.

    Reply
  36. jharp, are you going to continue to ignore the lies you wrote in an earlier post? Are you really Charles Johnson?

    In fact, if you didn’t care about Breitbart’s sexuality, why then did you say that you believed he was gay?

    Your second response further displays your ignorance. That quote was written to you to get you to identify why you wrote that you believed Breitbart was gay. Basically, when you identify yourself as a homophobe by randomly commenting on someone’s sexuality, it is pretty standard to get you on record as to why you have written something homophobic.

    So again, why do you believe Breitbart is gay?

    Reply
  37. I didn’t lie you asshole. There is no need for it.

    Breitbart is a liar and a snake. See Shirley Sherrod. He published a video edited to make it appear the opposite of what happened happened. Thus he is now defending himself in a court of law.

    It will all come out soon enough. Unless of course he settles out of court. And that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    I really don’t want to get into the gayness thing. It’s none of my business. I am sorry I brought it up. It doesn’t make any difference to me. My apologies.

    Reply
  38. jharp June 10, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    “I didn’t lie you asshole. There is no need for it. Breitbart is a liar and a snake. See Shirley Sherrod. He published a video edited to make it appear the opposite of what happened happened. Thus he is now defending himself in a court of law.”

    I love it. There is no need for lies, followed by an easily provable lie. I guess defending yourself in court means you’re guilty.

    Reply
  39. “I guess defending yourself in court means you’re guilty.”

    No. defending yourself in court means there is credible evidence that you are guilty.

    God you people are stupid.

    Reply
  40. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.
    God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid. God jharp is stupid.

    Just trying to catch up with ya jharp. I see why you argue this way it’s a lot easier, no thought necessary.

    Just a friendly reminder your pedophile hero apologized to Breitbart.

    Cheers

    Reply
  41. *cyber pedophile

    Reply
  42. Johnny 5 is alive June 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    *cyber pedophile

    Pedophilia is a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Dumbass.

    Got it? A sexual interest in prepubescent children. I would think you’d know what prepubescent means. But with you dumbasses I can’t be sure. Hint. It ain’t 17 year olds.

    There is no evidence of that. None.

    God you people are stupid.

    Reply
  43. jharp, why don’t you go back to the other post, where you were taken to task for your lies about Breitbart, rather than repeating them now, and making us repeat the proof of your lies, twice? Are you doing this on purpose? Repeating lies, after being proven a liar, on subsequent posts? It sure seems like it. Let me give you the link to the previous post so you can back and read how you were proven (already) to be wrong about Breitbart. http://leestranahan.com/what-do-weiners-women-all-have-in-common
    Now, if you choose to repeat the same lies, in subsequent posts, just be clear, we see that you are purposefully lying, repeatedly.

    Pedophilia is commonly used to describe an interest in pubescent, post-pubescent children, or minor children. The technical definition, if you were speaking to a psychologist, would be pre-pubescent. However, we are not speaking to psychologists. We are describing Weiner’s alleged sexual chatting with minor girls. So yes, if he has done this, then the layman would describe him as a pedophile, and it would not be inaccurate.

    By the way, there is police involvement with one of Weiner’s minors. http://patterico.com/2011/06/10/police-visit-ethel-2/ If he is shown to be guilty of sexual chats with minors, he will be labeled a pedophile. So get your typing hands softened up because you are going to be correcting hundreds if not thousands of reports which will describe him as a pedophile.

    Reply
  44. Jharp is right on that one. He’s not a pedophile, he’s a potential statutory rapist. He was only (allegedly) involved in illegal activity with underage girls on the internet (after proposing legislation that would put such offenders behind bars for longer).

    He’s a hypocrite and a predator. But, not a pedophile (probably because 12 year old girls don’t know who he is).

    Reply
  45. “Pedophilia is commonly used to describe an interest in pubescent, post-pubescent children, or minor children.”

    That is true no doubt. I have long said Americans are the dumbest fucking people on the planet. That you for more evidence to back my claim.

    “The technical definition, if you were speaking to a psychologist, would be pre-pubescent.”

    In other words pre-pubescent is the definition. Thanks again for confirming my post.

    “However, we are not speaking to psychologists.”

    Again, I’m aware. You’re speaking to and trying to rile up ignorant white trash. The GOP base.

    “We are describing Weiner’s alleged sexual chatting with minor girls.”

    And you are describing it incorrectly. It is not pedophilia. Even you admitted that.

    “So yes, if he has done this, then the layman would describe him as a pedophile.”

    No. Only the ignorant who buy your into your bullshit. Layman does not mean ignorant.

    “By the way, there is police involvement with one of Weiner’s minors.”

    Again. Minor. Not pre-pubescent.

    And I have no idea what the age of consent is in a state that I don’t the event is alleged to have occurred in.

    You might be surprised at the age of consent laws in some states.

    Weiner did something incredibly stupid. Yet there is no evidence of pedophilia.

    Admit you didn’t know what pedophilia meant and move on. You are one of many. The same damn thing is happening with Catholic priests sucking teenage boys dicks.

    It ain’t pedophilia. To me. Pedophilia is worse. Way worse.

    Reply
  46. “Jharp is right on that one. He’s not a pedophile”

    Thank you.

    And you would really be surprised at the age of consent laws. Do not assume it is against the law for a 45 year year old to be banging a 17 year old.

    Reply
  47. So, just to check… does everyone on this board take Breitbart at his word, that he had no idea that him showing those Opie/Anthony photos would be taped/photographed?

    Everyone who was there agrees publicly on what happened. Until such time that there’s some evidence of something else having happened, reasonable people have no choice but to take everyone involved at their unanimous word. Frankly, how a Weiner crank shot badly photographed on Breitbart’s phone got tweeted by Opie is a distinctly irrelevant question, but if you’d like to investigate further, be sure to let us know what you find.

    Reply
  48. According to patterico, the girls home state’s age of consent is 18. I know Nevada and Maine have lower consent ages, but this girl apparently doesn’t live there.

    Reply
  49. mark June 10, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    “According to patterico, the girls home state’s age of consent is 18. I know Nevada and Maine have lower consent ages, but this girl apparently doesn’t live there.”

    And so fucking what you dumbass?

    My points still stand. Both of them. There is no evidence Weiner is a pedophile. And it is wrong to assume that a 45 year banging a 17 year is against the law.

    God you people are stupid.

    Reply
  50. Ok, dumbass, if the girl lives in a state where the age of consent is 18, then no, its not wrong to say that this 45 year old banging this 17 year old would be illegal.

    All the evidence right now (about minors) is circumstantial. Luckily, the police are investigating it. And why are the police investigating it? Because in that girl’s state, its illegal for a 45 year old to bang a 17 year old.

    God, you’re fucking stupid, jharp.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Little Green WTF Part1 - [...] Johnson at Little Green Footballs won’t correct his ‘Breitbart Laptop Menu’ board post…so he goes on the [...]
  2. Little Green WTF? Part 2 - [...] I answered this point days ago. Again, Chuckles pretends this post doesn’t exist. [...]

Leave a Reply to DeputyHeadmistress Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *