Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Andrew Breitbart continues to construct alternate reality.

Breitbart insists that there's no racism within the Teabagging crowd, and that Congressmen like Rep. Emanuel Cleaver are lying when they make claims like being spat upon. Breitbart's even offered a $100,000 reward for video that proves the spitting took place.

It turns out that the Huffington Post has video.

Breitbart's next move: Insist that it's not really spitting that's depicted in the video, it's triangles.

EDIT: Welcome Assholery reader (at present time, there's only been a single IP address in Edmonton that's arrived here via that link).

I invite you to join me in finding the making of the "It was just projectile drool, I swear" argument via the linking to an article that mocks the "It was just projectile drool, I swear" argument as hilarious as the illustration of my above "triangles" point (see the comments section). Bonus self-inflicted wounding that may have been missed amidst the quote mining:
"Maybe, just maybe, this cretin actually did spit on Cleaver. And to be sure, he clearly did something highly offensive to the Congressman. Why can't Republicans then, out of simple human decency, just acknowledge and condemn this unacceptable behavior? They can't. It's simply not in their DNA. The vitriolic response from the right over SpitGate is therefore no surprise. The rush to unequivocally deny the occurrence, while simultaneously attacking Cleaver's credibility, reputation and motives, is despicable and shameful."
It's almost as though some people just can't help themselves.


Patrick Ross said...

Oh, Audrey.

We simply must stop meeting like this.

For your sake.

Sparky said...

Oh Patrick, I see that you're observational standards have truly worsened since the day you saw triangles on those boots...
You got yer knickers in a knot when you saw Jack move someones arm in a crowd, and now you're whining about what may or may not have happened in 'spittle-gate'
Speaking of spitting contests, when are we going to get a retraction on dem dar triangles and all the plethora of other things you've either mis-saw or mis-read or mis-understood??
Until such time, you insipid blathering little tool, you have absolutely no ground on which to stand when accusing others of mis-seeing what may or may not have happened in an internet video.
Why don't you go tell Maria she's wrong about something else instead of bothering the adults with your blather. Your MO is getting extremely stale.

Patrick Ross said...


Shorter Sparky: "please, please pleeeeeease pay no attention to that man waving to the camera.

He's just trying to see the TV."

And with that we cue the laugh track. Of course, no one's laughing with you, Sparkles, they're all laughing at you. And here's why:

Who's whining? Seems like you are.

I'm just here to point out to Audrey that the video in question is far less conclusive than she seems to want to pretend. That, by the way, is by the admission of a Huffington Post blogger.

Meanwhile, you've decided to respond with the same old tired half-truths from God only knows how many years ago, when we all know that if either of us has been discredited in the manner you want to describe, it's yourself from mere weeks ago.

After all, it isn't as if we don't have video of Jack Layton waving directly to the camera seconds before he pulled that woman's arm away from his face.

Hell, we even have it in slow motion!

You, as I recall, actually attempted to argue otherwise, despite the video evidence.

See the humour in this yet?

God knows I do. Christ, Sparkles, I couldn't even begin to take you seriously. Now take a hike, because I do believe the short bus is waiting to take you to school.

Sparky said...

And with Patricks usual MO of not taking any personal responsiblity for any of his wrongs, he yips off into the sunset into the realm of completely inconsequential.
Go Patty go!

Patrick Ross said...


Sparkles, Sparkles, Sparkles.

Admit the extent to which you were wrong about the Layton video, then you get to trot out that tired old complaint.

Fuck. What a retard.

Sparky said...

So there we have it--Patty wants someone else to apologize for Patrick's disingenous hackery before Patrick himself apologizes for his disingenuous hackery.
Got it.
K, here goes.
Patrick, I'm so ever so sorry you're a useless tool that can't go one comment thread here without being a disingenuous hack.
Actually, wait, no I'm not. Without your hackery, what the hell would I have to write about?
Once again, Patrick will devolve this thread into his usual shenanigans and 'kick assedness', based on solely his say so.
C'mon Patrick, those triangles still bothering you? How 'bout the deficit? I know, how 'bout 'we vote for PM'--that's always good for a laugh.
It's rather ironic that Patty has to go frame by frame to supposedly catch someone doing something that he thinks is bad and conflating that with, well, everything else.
come up with something new, Patrick, instead of your tired old yippage. As it is, you're still a tool.

Sparky said...

And this is the point of the story where Patrick, once again--just like "God only knows how many years ago"--gets his ass handed to him...
See, Patrick is a disingenuous hack.
We've known this for a long time now, and every time he posts he reinforces the point.
Read the commetn thread here--
Patrick fails reading comprehension 101(again)
I'll wait until you're done reading that...
K, you're back?
Let us begin disemboweling Patricks yippage--again, and then watch and wait afterwards to see how he doesn't address any of it--again (is what he does)
Audrey's blog post begins with--
"Even if one swallows all of the right-wing hysteria over goal-gate..."
Reading comprehension--even if we accept this as truth that Jack moved an arm to be seen on camera...
Audrey does not state whether it really is true or not, and, for her point, that particular bit didn't matter.
She focuses on the hypocritical right wing hysteria in yipping about Jack but not bothering to yip about EZ--that's her point.
Patrick fails to realize that and bases his entire yippage on what he thought he read instead of what's actually written. We see that when Patrick posts thus--
"Just like it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Jack Layton getting pushy/grabby with that woman on TV.
You either know full well that Layton's embarrassed himself, or you're out-of-touch with reality.
See, Patrick wanted Audrey's stance to be that JL didn't push someone's hand out of the way so he could be seen on camera.
However, those that can actually read know that this wasn't Audreys point at all.
But here's where your humble (and ever so right, again) scribe enters the foray...
See, Patrick started this mess by saying this--
"Tell me, Audrey: can you discern the difference between Jack Layton pushing people out of the way so he can be seen by a camera in a public place..."
Jack Layton pushing people out of the way...
Patrick either didn't see what actually transpired or conflated (gasp!) what actually occurred...

Sparky said...

So I replied to that--
"so this is the level of Patrick's observation skills...
No wonder he saw triangles when everyone else saw octagons.
Not only is his reading comprehension sadly lacking, he can't even see properly.
Better see an eye doctor sometime, Patrick.
See what I did there? I called Patrick on the "pushing people out of the way"
But Patrick's having none of that--nosiree!!
No, in Patricks addleminded, spittle-flecked little world, I'm of the 'Jack didn't move someone's arm so he could be seen by the camera' group.
We can see that by his reply--
"Well, Sparkles, it seems like only you and your ilk are the only ones having trouble seeing this video clearly"
Watch the video.
Did any of you see Jack Layton pushing people out of the way??
I didn't.
What's more, either did Patrick.
See, here's where his disingenuous hackery has no bounds. Further in the thread he 'backpedals' by saying this--
"Layton looking at TV located away from camera.

Bar erupts. Layton looks into camera, waves at the camera, pushes woman's arm out of the way so he can be seen
Moving someone's arm a wee tad is a far cry from "Jack Layton pushing people out of the way", Patrick.
But again, it's Patrick's little world where he sees what he wants and damn the truth or subtle nuance!!
'Cause he does go on...
"one in which you ignore video evidence just because you want to?"
Who here ignored video evidence? Who here conflated what actually transpired in order to score cheap points?
Here's the big one--who here--wilfully or not--misinterpreted what everyone else wrote in order to go on a yipping spree?? Oh right, that'd ber Patrick.
And then we come back to this very thread, in which we have Patrick--taunting... daring... just wanting me to apologize for his misinterpratation of the above event before he apologizes for his triangles--
"Admit the extent to which you were wrong about the Layton video, then you get to trot out that tired old complaint."
Which also goes to show how completely out of touch Patrick is with anything resembling reading comprehension, for in my very first comment in this thread I write thusly--
"You got yer knickers in a knot when you saw Jack move someones arm in a crowd"
What the hell did I write there??? That Jack moved someone's arm in a crowd??? Oh wait, I never said he didn't. I was never one of these 'Jack just did it so he could see the telly'. Nowhere did I say I was--that was never the point of the thread. However Patrick wants to wilfully misconstrue all of this, once again it just shows the depths he'll go to achieve some sort of victory.
So not htat this is all straightened out Patrick, let's be hearing some of that there triangle/no deficit/we vote for PM/CO2 and everything else you've been wrong about mea culpas now...
I won't hold my breath.
I'll understand if you have your usual problems reading more than a line or two...

Patrick Ross said...

Well, it's pretty clear that Sparkles has come unhinged.

Sparkles -- we have video of Jack Layton waving to the camera, then pulling that woman's arm out of the way so he can be seen.

We have it in slow motion.

You're the only one who seems to see this any differently.

Patrick Ross said...

Sigh. And I quote:

"I admit, it's pretty hard to tell if the enraged Tea Bagger intentionally spit on the Congressman."

End game in a single line. I love it.

Sparky said...

K everyone, this is Exhibit X in the continuing saga of why Patrick can't ever be taken seriously--he can't read.
Roll the credits--we're done

Patrick Ross said...


Shorty Sparky - "I can't convince anyone that my ffth-rate rhetoric is superb, so I'll just pretend."

Sheesh. At some point you'd think he'd get tired of losing. Not Sparkles the Magical Retard -- he's magically retarded!

Audrey II said...

If any of this seems someone familiar to those of you still reading this thread, you're right... it is.

Go, go, Triangle Man!

Patrick Ross said...

Double yawn. Triple, even.

It actually amuses me -- Audrey wants people to think she's some kind of expert on philosophy (therefore the venn diagrams she periodically rants about), and yet her argumentantive skills haven't progressed beyond the genetic fallacy.

(Endgame in a single line. I love it!)

Sparky said...

Zzzz... zzzzz..

Someone wake me when Patty passes remedial reading 101.

Audrey II said...

That's likely to be one indefinitely long hibernation, Sparky. I hope you have an alarm clock as a back-up.

Given the above, I wouldn't hold my breath for "passes elementary logic" either.

On the positive side, he might just qualify for an adolescent-playground-rhetoric participation sticker. Three cheers for Tha Flamethrower!

Patrick Ross said...


Well, Audrey, perhaps you'd like to point out where in that video it can be shown that the individual in question intentionally spit on the congressman, we could consider this matter closed.

I mean, we all know what Andy Ostroy has to say about it:

"I admit, it's pretty hard to tell if the enraged Tea Bagger intentionally spit on the Congressman."

And... we... are...

...wait for it...

Done here.

You two feebs may now commense with the "convincing ourselves we didn't just horribly lose" phase of the conversation, as per your predictable pattern.

Audrey II said...

Of course you're "done here". Premature declaration of victory seems to be a chronic condition for some, Pat.

You've no interest in the rest of Ostroy's piece where he not only mocks the very argument that you're advancing, but also denounces efforts such as Breitbart's to deny that it occurred and to attack Cleaver's motives.

I think that the video speaks for itself. You're certainly welcome to continue howling "triangles" for as long as you want. Perhaps someone out there might actually miss the irony of you illustrating the very point I made in my original post.

We now return our readers to the regularly scheduled "You gots spanked" exercise in adolescent bluster.

Patrick Ross said...

Wow. OK, apparently I'm not done here just yet.

Audrey apparently hasn't yet reflected on the significance of the detail that I don't have to utter a single word to make the video in question conclusive.

Buy Andy Ostroy has to write 231 words just to make it seem plausible that the vdieo might be conclusive.

And yet, Audrey, as I asked you to no avail:

Can you point to something in that video that proves that the individual in question intentionally spit on Cleaver?

And you have yet to. You haven't because you can't. And you know it.

And when one considers the laughable standard of evidence that Ostroy uses to suggest that the video demonstrates that the individual intentionally spit on Cleaver:

"Cleaver obviously is either a great physical actor or some 'spit-like' fluid definitely hit him in the face as he passed the protester, causing his entire body to jerk away from the accused;"

Now contrary to what Ostray would like anyone to believe, that could just as easily been a "jesus, this motherfucker spits when he talks" reaction as a "this guy just intentionally spit on me" reaction.

Of course, it would be more convincing if Ostray didn't have to invent a "hands cupped to conceal the act" argument.

But then, of course, there is the matter of Cleaver's own description of the individual:

"I said to this one person, 'You spat on me.' I thought he was going to say, 'Hey, I was yelling. Sorry.' But he continuing yelling and, for a few seconds, I pointed at him and said, 'You spat on me.'"

Sounds an awful lot more like "this motherfucker spits when he talks" than "the guy who intentionally spit on me".

Even Cleaver himself isn't pretending that this individual intentionally spit on him. So, one supposes, the question must be thus:

Why are you trying so hard to prop up an argument that you know won't hold up?

See, kids, the thing is this:

You can have the saliva on the face. But that doesn't satisfy your argument. You need intentional saliva on the face.

The video that Audrey and Andy Ostroy have passed off as proof isn't conclusive on its own, and isn't any more convincing after a wild conspiracy theory.

Now, I think we all know that a rational and logiacl argument from either Audrey or Sparky will follow this, and not adolescent bluster.

...Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I got that backwards.

But, then again, one of you could always try to prove me wrong.

Audrey II said...

I think the video clearly shows that the individual did spit on Cleaver and likely did so intentionally. I certainly acknowledge the limitations of video or photographs with respect to conclusively proving intent, but I think that (like the Quebec police provocateurs) most people who see it will agree that what's depicted is more likely octagons than the triangle that you're desperately clinging to. Ironically, the very person that you cited as an authority on the matter agrees with my position, not yours.

I did very much like the linking to an article that mocks and concludes the exact opposite of the very position that you're espousing. Sheer argumentative brilliance, Pat.

Patrick Ross said...


Audrey. By Cleaver's own account, as quoted here, the protester spat on him in the process of bellowing at him, and then continued to shout after Cleaver had told the man he had spit on him.

Emphasis on the word "continued".

So Audrey, I'll ask you again: at what point in that video does it become evident that the man intentionally spit on congressman Cleaver?

Please do try to be more convincing than Andy Ostray.

Because, after all, Ostray blew the entire game with this particular line:

"I admit, it's pretty hard to tell if the enraged Tea Bagger intentionally spit on the Congressman."

The game was already over the insant Ostray typed that line -- you're just too irredeemably stupid to realize it, and too irredeemably dishonest to admit it if you did.

The point, at the end of the day, Audrey, is that either way you're irredeemable, and a waste of my time. Which, now that I've savaged you to the extent that you have to recycle predictable half-truths, is perfectly evident.

Thus, I shall waste no more time on you.

You and Sparkles may feel free to resume the commiseration stage.

Join us again next time when I defeat Audrey -- again.

Sparky said...

Only in your own little dream world, Pattie.
Go back to your little nexus where y'all can 'commiserate' to yer hearts content.
When you learn how to read, we'll be ready to dialogue

Post a Comment