Just One Quick Example Of How Dumb Team Breitbart Is

larry-oconnorLatching on to the release this morning of President Obama skeet shooting in order to counteract right-wing conspiracy theorists, the idiotic Breitbart.com writer/paste-eater Larry O’Connor uncovers a conspiracy!

The White House has released a picture purporting to show President Obama “skeet shooting” at Camp David.  An activity he claims he does “all the time.”

The White House also warns all you mischievous internet types to not mess around with the picture:

“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

Ha ha! See? NOBAMA doesn’t want you making no Photoshops of his (PROBABLY FAKE) skeet-shooting picture, and of course this is all about this one and only specific picture because NRA something new world order, pass the paste!

Or not.

Because, see, this notice has been attached to every White House picture that has been released on their Flickr account (and everyone basically ignores anyway).

You can go all the way back to 2009, to the first ever Obama administration picture posted on the White House Flickr account — and the notice is right there.

It’s boilerplate language, not a vast left-wing conspiracy of any sort.

I had a lot of problems with the late Andrew Breitbart. I think what he did made him terrible. But he was never this stupid. The inmates are running the Breitbart asylum, and they are morons.

  • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.g.grady Patrick Grady

    Well, if Team Breitbart is so dumb, how did they get a rent-free lease to live in your head?

    • noctua minerva

      I guess they just got a special place in their soft liberal hearts for drunk, fat, ignorant, hate-filled, queer, yid, coke-heads. I guess.

  • dbtheonly

    gary,

    Remember, “because those on the left I’m sure never messed with any of GW Bush’s pics.”? You wrote it yesterday.

    What’s the point of the O’Connor post if not to suggest there’s something nefarious with the WH limitation on manipulating the photo for commercial purposes?

    • Buzz Killington

      I agree with gary’s main point here; I don’t read anything in that post other than a suggestion to have some fun doctoring the photo. That is Iowahawk’s MO, especially. Oliver himself resorts to linking to a different source to bring the conspiracy craziness into this discussion. This post is basically a fabrication, of the sort Oliver often decries.

      Adding the bit you quoted is a lazy potshot though, which unfortunately distracts from what is an otherwise valid observation.

      • dbtheonly

        Buzz,

        I was too snarky eh?

        What was the point of O’Connor’s article (which Oliver printed essentially completely) except to suggest that the WH was making a new (outrageous) limit on the use of the photo? There’s the potential scandal. Created out of whole cloth.

        • Buzz Killington

          My apologies for being unclear, db. I meant what gary said, the bit you quoted, “because those on the left I’m sure never messed with any of GW Bush’s pics” was a potshot.

          • dbtheonly

            No apologies needed Buzz,

            I try to be not too biting while posting & worry that I get too biting or insulting when I post.

      • gary1son

        Thank you Buzz, I’m glad somebody gets it. It’s all about harmless fun like putting Bugs Bunny’s finger in the barrel of Obama’s gun, not being unaware of standard disclaimers on photos. It seems to me that it’s Willis who’s being ‘dumb’ in this particular case, not O’Connor.

        Lazy potshot? That’s a strange way to characterize a little quip that’s merely summing up that the right is going to goof on Obama’s pics just like the left goofed on GW Bush’s pics. Hardly a ‘potshot’. Lazy? If you say so.

        • dbtheonly

          Like Colbert showing that the picture of President Obama shooting was actually taken on the same set where they staged the moon landings?

        • Buzz Killington

          It’s not something worth arguing about (there is no resolution), added nothing to the topic at hand, and in fact demonstrably distracted people from your relevant point. It continues to do so as I type this.

          “You people” or “those people” type comments are *never* constructive. I suppose it’s ironic to point that out in a comment on this blog…

  • Christopher Foxx

    gary1son: Obama has long demonstrated his anti-gun feelings

    Like when he passed all of those laws banning guns during the past four years and all those other things he did to demonstrate his anti-gun feelings.

    Except, of course, he didn’t do any of those things. gary1son must be talking about the Clint Eastwood Obama, the one that doesn’t exist.

    • gary1son

      Note that I said feelings, not actions during the last 4 or 5 years. His hands are (or were) tied because he couldn’t win in certain swing states if he were honest about his feelings. (and had the media been honest about his actions*) We’ll see what happens now however; he and the left in general seem to be in campaign mode for more gun control, something that would never have happened before the election.

      However he did demonstrate quite a few anti-gun feelings and actions (votes) during his political career prior to running for President, as one can easily find by googling things like ‘FLASHBACK—OBAMA, CIRCA 1990S: ‘I DON’T BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS’

      • dbtheonly

        So gary,

        You’re saying that you are condemning President Obama for what you feel he stands for?

        And he’d act on those ideas you feel he has except he’s not being honest about those ideas?

        And “the media” is not being honest in attributing to President Obama the actions he’d take to further the doctrines you feel he stands for?

        • gary1son

          “You’re saying that you are condemning President Obama for what you feel he stands for?”

          Not what I feel he stands for, but what he’s demonstrated he stands for when political expediency is not an issue.

          “And he’d act on those ideas you feel he has except he’s not being honest about those ideas?”

          Yes, it’s logical to assume he would act upon those ideas HE’S DEMONSTARED HE HAS, if not for the political ramifications. This is not terribly controversial or anything new. It’s politics 101 …. certain Democrats have traditionally kept their anti-gun feelings hidden due to the fact that a large part of their constituencies would either stay home or vote against them if the truth were to be told.

          “And “the media” is not being honest in attributing to President Obama the actions he’d take to further the doctrines you feel he stands for?”

          They’re demonstratively not being honest. How many stories did you see on the high profile DVM* programs reporting/investigating Obama’s stance/votes on the 2nd Amendment, and guns in general, during his first campaign for President? His second?

          * DVM — Democrat voting media

          • dbtheonly

            Gary,

            You 3 days ago, “Note that I said feelings, not actions during the last 4 or 5 years.”

            You yesterday, “Not what I feel he stands for, but what he’s demonstrated he stands for”

            I could argue that there is no “Liberal Media” but you seem to be in a closed loop logically. Only Fox “news” is accurate, polls are “skewed”, President Obama hates guns & is actively trying to take them away. You validate yourself internally.

          • gary1son

            db,

            You seem to be unable to make the distinction between Obama as President, or running for President, and his early days in Illinois, where a mask was unnecessary. I’ve tried to explain the (well known and not that complicated) political dynamics of Democrats and guns to you to no avail.

            You try to assign all sorts of unsupportable beliefs to me for some reason …… but there is clear evidence that the media is biased to the left. Google this:

            “Media’s Campaign Donations Tilt 100-to-1 In Favor of Democrats”

            Now ask yourself, were this to be reversed, and it was revealed that all these media people contributed 100-to-1 to Republicans, and their stories were consistently more favorable to Republicans, would I not conclude that the media was biased to the right? Of course you would, and rightfully so. And this doesn’t even address the disparity within the entertainment media, which is probably even more stark.

            Based on the evidence I’ve detailed previously, I believe that Obama believes the same about the second amendment as does his S.C. appointment Sotomayor and probably Kagen, along with all the other justices he constantly praises — that it’s not an individual right, but a collective one subject to the whims of the government. Obama’s politically smart enough to pretend otherwise, and I’m smart enough to discern his true beliefs on the matter.

            Google: “Does Sonia Sotomayor Respect the Second Amendment? Her Record Says No”

          • http://www.facebook.com/johnmburt John M. Burt

            I think gary1son has provided us with a potentially useful new word, DEMONSTARED, the communication of what you truly desire, regardless of what you merely do or say, by a demonlike stare which can be easily detected by the pure of heart, even when disguised under a pleasant smile or a look of calm consideration.
            gary1son has demonstrated nothing of his claims, but that is unimportant, because those who are not fools will see the demonstare with perfect clarity.

          • gary1son

            I think you simply don’t know how to respond or rebut with anything resembling ‘perfect clarity’, so you just write cute sounding but irrelevant word salad.

            It’s NOT what I’ve NOT demonstated, but what you’ve chosen to ignore.

    • http://frothslosh.typepad.com/ Ol Froth

      And expanding the right to carry concealed weapons in National Parks.

  • Christopher Foxx

    I really don’t know why Obama bothers. He’s supposedly a very bright man and a strategic thinker. How has he not yet figured out that no matter what he does he’s not going to get any kind of support from and will never be liked by those who he’s pandering to. Those who he originally made the “sure, I shoot all the time” comment for and released that photo to appease.

    He should talk to the reasonable, rational people in the US and point out how ridiculous those folks are. He shouldn’t pander to them. There is utterly no point.

  • ThumperNM

    The only problem I’ve ever had with Breitbart is that he died far too late and that he didn’t suffer more. He was an acerbic drunk and a congenital liar

    • Zython

      Eh, I’m fine with the knowledge that he’s no longer in a position to hurt anyone else.

    • http://twitter.com/BarryBummer Barry Bummer

      I hated Breitbart and thought he was a wretched excuse for a journalist, but what you just said is deplorable. It makes us all look bad.

      • ThumperNM

        Sorry Barry, but Andrew Breitbart was no more nor less than a cancer on the soul of America. He used his influence to damage and destroy anyone and everyone he could. His death was well deserved and he died as just another drunken hate monger.

  • Treading_Water

    Will someone please convince the newscasters to use the term “Skeetgate”? I need to hear that on cable news.

  • gary1son

    What Willis leaves out is this little line:

    “Um…. Are you listening, Iowahawk and Ace of Spades?”

    Right-wing jovial goof-offs of sorts, for those unfamiliar.

    And also note the bolding: “The photograph may not be manipulated in any way….”

    Are we getting it yet?

    So see, instead of suggesting some leftwing conspiracy, or being unaware that this is a standard statement on WH pictures, or whatever Willis is trying to imagine O’Connor was thinking or saying, all he’s really saying is ….. hey boys, here’s one of those White House photos they say you must leave alone for you to mess with once again.

    Shameful of course, because those on the left I’m sure never messed with any of GW Bush’s pics.

    • http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/mtbwelcome.htm RepackRider

      Both sides do it! Both sides do it!

      Now back to your regularly scheduled program of false equivalence.

      • dbtheonly

        Repack,

        First off, I’ll take gary’s claim & assert that I know of no instance where a G W Bush photo was altered for the purpose of creating a scandal. Alterations for mockery, satire, or humor are NOT the same. Both sides DON’T do it.

        I just chalk this up to another attempt to create a “scandal du jour”. I disagree with Oliver. It isn’t stupid. If they can create a scandal & make it fly, then they’ve succeeded.

        • The Dark Avenger

          “The WH told us not to alter the photo. WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH! We can’t make the Kenyan Usurper look ridiculous! No fair!”

          Jesus, it’s a race with the Breitbart fools to the bottom now, isn’t it?

  • ZenBonobo

    What could you see on the monitor from your position regarding this bitter comeuppance?