Andrew Breitbart, dead at 43

[Dr Strangelove]

It has been 3 weeks.

[The Mad Monk]

If you are implying that he is being protected, you're going to have to tell me by whom.

[loinburger]

Was he a major anti-drug crusader? Because if not, then who cares if he died of a drug overdose? More power to him. Party hard, Breitbart.

Now if he were buggered to death by a former Acorn prostitute dominatrix or something then sure, I'd call that a bit scandalous.

[KrazyHorse]

Based on what little I know about his positions, I'd say he was probably anti-drug crusade.

[The Mad Monk]

Let's assume that is the case. Those who would want to expose him are the ones with the power. Those you would want to protect him have little or none.

[DinoDoc]

Especially in LA.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Based on what little I know about his positions, I'd say he was probably anti-drug crusade.

He was staunchly libertarian and supported pot legalization IIRC. Likely the same for other drugs were I to guess.

He had a number of fall outs with the social cons. Beck for example.

[Wezil]

I don't think the wait for cause of death has been overly long (yet).

Iirc, Amy Winehouse's final report was many weeks after her death.

[Dinner]

Was he a major anti-drug crusader? Because if not, then who cares if he died of a drug overdose? More power to him. Party hard, Breitbart.

Now if he were buggered to death by a former Acorn prostitute dominatrix or something then sure, I'd call that a bit scandalous.

But if he was cracked out it would suddenly make the rantings on his website explainable. "Well, ****. I guess he really was high as a kite."

[KrazyHorse]

He was staunchly libertarian and supported pot legalization IIRC. Likely the same for other drugs were I to guess.

He had a number of fall outs with the social cons. Beck for example.

Yeah, I figured (based on his gay marriage stance)

[Dinner]

I still don't understand why a supposed libertarian would be against gay marriage. Surely, a real libertarian would have Ron Paul's stance of the government shouldn't be involved with marriages at all, it should be a private contract between two consenting adults, and the government should play no role in it. That is if a person was logically consistent and actually was a libertarian.

[The Mad Monk]

... but the government is playing a role in it.

If marriage is a religious ceremony, shouldn't it be regulated by whichever religion it is being performed in?

If it is a private contract, then who cares what it is called?

[Dinner]

Personally, I care what it is called because if it's the same thing but just given a different name then we have the same old separate but equal argument which we know can never be equal.

BTW religious groups can perform or not perform what ever ceremonies they want but it isn't legal until it's registered with the government so that's where it really matters. Ron Paul is saying the government should just stop doing that and I can't fault his logic from a libertarian standpoint. Now, I disagree with him but must acknowledge he is at least being ideologically consistent which is refreshing.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oerdin, it's a legal contract, not a ****ing water fountain or public school. You could write the law such that they are entirely identical with different names.

[DaShi]

Marriage isn't a religious ceremony.