| 0 |
Subject: Bill Maher, 1 of the Most Dangerous Men in America
Posted by: Jag
- [14849321] Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 13:09
Any person that moves us closer to socialism is damgerous. Unforuately, many young folk get their political agenda and news from comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, But Maher, while not overly brillant,(he believes Americans are more apt to illness because we take medication to prevent us from coughing and sneezing, and that we need to get those impurities out of our system, maybe next time I get the sniffles I can get Tree to pull my finger and rip out a big cloud of impurities), he is adept at propaganda. You would think Valerie Plame was a female James Bond, instead of the anti-Bush secretary with a gloryhound husband, by listening to him. Like most liberals he surrounds himself with like minded Leftwingers, so not to forgo the scrutiny of his wacko beliefs. But inspite of incrediably unrealistic agenda, he is mildly entertaining and like the Jedi Mindtrick, his words can have an affect on the more feeble minded. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 161 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:27
|
Baldwin #153. The only liberal blog I saw (but I did not go out of my way to search) about Snow's cancer was a nice article on The Huffington Post saying to the effect: "I disagree with his views, tactics and lies, but I feel very badly for him and his family." It was sincere and a nice thing to publish. Relatedly, I am dismayed about the media coverage and scrutiny about Edwards' personal life (wife's cancer, their decision and previous child's death). There are more substantive issues to be discussed!
- walk
|
| 162 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:34
|
Yeah, I dunno who started the anti-Obama stories, but I'd bet on folks other than Hillary and co. The scrutiny on candidate's personal lives, and heritage is just appalling. I don't care if it's been done before. I don't care that it's fight fire with fire. It's just wrong and low, low, low. I also do not like the allegation that Obama is so "inexperienced." He has had more time in gov't and a more diverse set of gov't experiences than Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, and Romney. And, of course, Bush. And yet you hear on Faux News, "where's the substance?" If you ask the question, make the insinuation, it must be true. That's the MO. That's win at all costs (but not the lowest the dirty politics and news do). They all do it, but I think the neocons are much more intense and false about it. I wish it was no more.
- walk
|
| 163 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:45
|
That HuffPost Blog about Tony Snow and cancer
I think though several members (discussion forum comments made by individuals) commented in a nasty way about his health, but not bloggers.
- walk
|
| 164 | Tree
ID: 582392917
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 13:47
|
Baldwin - i anxiously await you linking us to some of that hate speech about Snow's cancer. no doubt, a slew of well-known, highly-regarded leftists are mocking him in whatever medium they dwell in.
|
| 165 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 16:54
|
You know, I bowed out of the last election and I think I'll try and bow out of the next one. Unless something really funny strikes me I just wanna stay out of it.
I can think of some interesting angles to Obama and Hillary to speak on but I think we'll have to wait for the next Baldwin to appear. Maybe you'll find someone else willing and able to face down the howler monkey treatment. I really hope you find him.
|
| 166 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 18:58
|
You have extremists on both sides that wish harm on the other and their families. The only mainstream politician I have seen try to pull a family member into the debate was John Edwards during the Vice-Presidental debate, when he not only brought up Cheney's daughter, he refused to get off the subject. Edwards is also one of worse of offenders of trying to create class warfare to help his campaign.
So Baldwin is going to donate a few 1000s for a college fund and this makes him a nice guy? Well, Cheney has donated millions to charity so I guess he is a 1000xs nicer a guy than Baldwin.
|
| 167 | Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 19:04
|
Uh, right. All the ads which talked about Kerry's wife you must have forgotten. How about ads which included Bill Clinton's wife? Forgot those too, eh?
Cheney's daughter was, at the time, one of his political directors, and was fair game for the question as far as anyone should be concerned. You don't want to be asked about then don't accept a paid position in you father's campaign.
|
| 168 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 19:27
|
Clinton's wife is a politician and, no, I don't remember ads about Kerry's wife. Edwards showed his true character bringing up Cheney's daughter and trying to polarize America by preaching class warfare is the height of hypocracy, when his next sentence is about bringing America together.
|
| 169 | Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 19:53
|
She is now. She wasn't then. And that's the point, isn't it?
Don't look now, but you're mixing up your talking points on Edwards. [Hint: Edwards never talked about Mary Cheney in terms of "class warfare"]
|
| 170 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 20:28
|
You are comparing Hilary, who is running for President, to Mary Cheney as far as political advocacy? Can you even see what you are typing? Hilary has been in politics since the Watergate scandal and later worked for Jimmy Carter. At any point does common sense override your partisanship?
|
| 171 | Perm Dude
ID: 16250308
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 20:58
|
No, idiot. I'm comparing Hilary when she was First Lady to Mary Cheney.
|
| 172 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:03
|
You honestly claim to not recall any of the attacks ads re Kerry and his marriage to the Heiress??????? Apparently in your book, attacking the non-compensated spouse of a candidate is OK provided its the Reps doing the attacking, but for the Dems to point out the hypocrisy in a Reps stance, is off-base and going too far?
At any point does common sense override your partisanship?
A valid question Jag. So when WILL common sense make its first appearance in one of your posts?
|
| 173 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:11
|
Hilary Clinton has been in politics since college and shaped White House policy more than any First Lady in history. There is no comparison, other than a grasp at straws.
|
| 174 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:25
|
The only attack I remember on Kerry's wife, if you want to call it attack, was her donating millions to Tides, a far-left wing charity funding far-left extremist groups, including Islamic Jihadists. She openly supported Tides, so how can that be an attack.
|
| 175 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:32
|
a far-left wing charity funding far-left extremist groups, including Islamic Jihadists.
Claims like that without links are meaningless on this forum. Actually, beyond meaningless, because they destroy credibility, not that you're swimming in that anyway.
Ironically, much as it pains me to agree with you, I've come to the same conclusion about Edwards and his "two Americas" being a form of class warfare.
|
| 176 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:33
|
I don't remember Cheney asking anyone about their family members in a debate.
|
| 177 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:44
|
To quote biliruben, "Look it up lazy ass". I used to post links on information I had already retained, but then I would be attacked on the link. Make up your minds, if you want to demand links, then be consistent and do the same for your Left-Wing posters.
|
| 178 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 21:53
|
Sarge, ask me if I remember any attacks ads towards Kerry's wife and that was the only one I recalled. I vaguely remember another about Heinz using other coumtries for cheap labor, while Kerry was preaching about jobs going overseas.
|
| 179 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:03
|
Hilary Clinton has been in politics since college and shaped White House policy more than any First Lady in history.
Possibly true, but only if you dont count Nancy Reagan.
|
| 180 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:03
|
How about ads which included Bill Clinton's wife? - PD
You could possibly think that was ever out of bounds? I swear sometimes you just completely zone out, posting before engaging brain, PD.
Edit that weak stuff out before hitting 'Post Now!'.
|
| 181 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:05
|
Sarge
I think the woman you are thinking of is Nancy's astrologer.
|
| 182 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:08
|
I have heard that a few times about Nancy, never really saw it, but if it is true she did a good job running the country.
|
| 183 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Fri, Mar 30, 2007, 22:53
|
To quote biliruben, "Look it up lazy ass".
I did. According to the far right rag Frontpagerag.com
Tides gave money to CAIR, admittedly a POS organization dedicated to garnering sympathy for Muslims with big mouths and attorneys, but that hardly qualifies as Islamic jihad, or funding for such.
For the record, you may want to consider the connection between the Bushes and Riggs Bank.
According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's "Age of Sacred Terror," upon taking office the Bush administration tried to halt efforts to tighten international banking laws – some of which may have affected Riggs. As he notes, the new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush administration opposed Clinton administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."
Newsweek reported that checks to "two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers" may have come "from an account at Washington's Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan." This, and other details, were reportedly part of the bipartisan House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the Saudi money flow after 9/11. Yet, instead of allowing the committee's final report to be published in full, "Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence" surrounding the transactions.
|
| 184 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 09:27
|
I woudln't doubt IF the Saudis could tempoarily lower gas prices to help Bush, that they would do it. I have heard many conspiracy theories about Bush and the Saudis and to be honest, I am not sure what to think. It is a complicated situation. I can only hope the Bush administration can keep good relations without allowing for terrorist funding.
I think one thing we can all agree on is we need to be energy self-sufficent, so we don't have to kowtow to Middle East oil.
|
| 185 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:06
|
re oil...we cannot be independent. The onle route open to energy independence, is research at this point. Into alternative methods of energy, which of course, not only flies in the face of shrubs oil buddies, but calls for real science. Something this admin has shown a distinct disdain toward.
|
| 186 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:10
|
Sarge, we have had the same problem for decades and Bush wasn't president all that time.
|
| 187 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:47
|
Hillary Clinton was fair game the moment the "two-for-one" stuff was established in the 1992 campaign.
Theresa Heinz-Kerry (while obviousy very hard to resist) was not fair game to my memory. Kerry's marriage to her and her family's wealth certainly was, though.
Mary Cheney was fair game. Aside from holding a leadership position on the campaign (something that by itself should qualify her) her sexual orientation put her at direct odds with the policy of her her father and the campaign she worked for. Its entirely pertinant to challenge Cheney in areas where his very public private life are related to his policy and other pertinant aspects of him as a public figure.
Further, if there was any dounbt, Cheney opened the door wide open on his own by publicly discussing his daughter's sexual orientation on national television prior to the election.
If John Edwards were cutting hundreds of millions in cancer research, it would not be be taboo to bring up Elizabeth in a debate.
In 2006, much was publicly made of NYS GOP AG candidate Jeanine Pirro' husband, Albert Pirro, who had been convicted of scores of counts of tax fraud and was mired in numerous other scandals. Pirro argued that the questions about her husband were an assault on her family life but the fact is that she was running for state AG and his corrupt behavior occurred under her nose while she served as Westchester County AG. Of course it was im[portant to ask her about her family life.
And given the questions regrading Rudy Guiliani's committment to conservative social issues, his marriage and divorce history is also fair game. I personally may not feel it's very important, but I'd expect the large swaths of society that do put emphasis on family life to have tough questions for him - and that makes the issue very legitimate campaign fodder.
|
| 188 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 10:54
|
re 186...and Clinton hasnt been President in almost 8 years. That doesnt however, slow you, Baldwin or others of your extreme biased ilk, for continuing to blame the worlds woes upon him. (Or Carter for that matter.)
|
| 189 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 13:03
|
I still believe the way Carter handle the hostages back in the 70s has lead to some of the problems we have today. But not just Carter, Reagan's handling of Beirut, he admitted his pulling the marines from Lebanon would have repercussions for future generations. Bush sr. letting shiites get slaughter after organizing the coup was one of the worse policy decisions I can remember and Clinton paying off the tinpot dictator of Korea both led to future problems that GW had to handle. I believe all of these Presidents knew what they were doing was wrong and just wanted to pass the buck to the next President, except Carter, who I think was just an idiot.
Liberals answer to every Foriegn policy problem is "We just need to talk." Well I have been on this forum for awhile and they haven't convinced me of much and believe it or not, I am not as radical as Ahmadinejad.
When the Left talk about Middle East policy, I think of Neville Chamberlain.
Chamberlain
Here are some Chamberlain quotes that could be turned to fit some of the Liberal's remark of today.
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war." He was talking how we shouldn't fear the Nazi's, but this could be change to fit terrorists.
"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine.... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again." This could fit any agreement made with the Middle East or North Korea.
Neville Chamberlain will go down in history as one of the worse Prime Ministers in England's history because of his policy of appeasement. It is not the Right's want for blood, that sets us apart from the Left on Foriegn Affairs, just our knowledge of history and appeasement.
|
| 190 | Perm Dude
ID: 5821318
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 14:10
|
Clinton paying off the tinpot dictator of Korea...
Still bleeting this line, eh? Turns out, however, that we never paid them a dime.
I would suggest looking up "Agreed Framework" and looking over whatever you find before presuming to pass judgement on what Clinton didn't actually do.
|
| 191 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 17:07
|
PD, It's been too long for me to remember every detail but research Clinton on Korea. He completely blew that one.
|
| 192 | Perm Dude
ID: 5821318
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 19:13
|
Already researched, B. Bush is the one who blew Korea.
|
| 193 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 19:55
|
Clinton's negotiators got rolled, pure and simple.
|
| 194 | Perm Dude
ID: 5821318
Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 20:32
|
In what way, precisely?
Bush's technique, apparently, is to give NK a shorter route to nuclear weapons, and not confront him for fear of legitimizing the regime. Good thinking.
|
| 195 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 01:13
|
PD, I can post a link from a far-right op-ed piece to counter that one.
Opposite view
My opinion is building light water nuclear reactors for North Korea on the promise of keeping rods lock up is ludicrous. I would give them all the food they wanted, but not more nuclear technology and equipment. I can see why Congress and South Korea opted out of the agreement, it was completely an inane proposition.
|
| 196 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 09:26
|
Washington Monthing is not a far-left magazine.
And if you're going to present an opposing view, please make sure it makes a case for the claims it boasts. Youve already been burned bad for the links you provided.
This one claims, "There are people who try to deny the fact that North Korea owes its nuclear weapons program (and us our decreased national security) to the Clinton Administration."
North Korea NEVER GOT THE PROMISED REACTORS. Their current proliferation occurred without Clinton having to do anything.
If he had applied the same policy to NK as the Bush before him (NK's proliferation program was dicovered in 1989) and the Bush after him: DO NOTHING, exactly the same thing would have happened that did happen. North Korea would have built a bomb on her own. The Clinton legacy is identical to both Bush legacys.
I won't deny that the Clinton policy (like the policies of both Bushes) was a failure. He couldn't get Congress to comply to the deal that was brokered so it was doomed. End of story.
We'll never know if it could have worked, tho we can safely presume two things: 1) that it would be a lot harder for KJI to build weapons from light water reactors than from his current equipment and 2) the starving citizens of NK would be better off for having sanctions lifted and the benefit of nuclear power provided by the US and Japan.
Semi-related question for Jag:
Do you believe Congress was within its right to override a decision made by the Executive branch by refusing to fund it?
|
| 197 | Perm Dude
ID: 1132317
Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 09:39
|
It is more than just trading legal reactors for illegal ones, Jag. And one thing you don't see from your article is the difference in processing plutonium with processing uranium (the second was not covered in the Agreed Framework, BTW, yet it was the excuse the Bushies took to back out of an agreement they never wanted. As it turns out, Bush's intelligence on this was as good as his intelligence on Iraq).
Congress didn't opt out--the Agreed Framework was not a treaty and was never presented to Congress to approve or no.
The important thing to remember is that when dealing with North Korea, it is just as important to talk about recognition as for anything else. In other words, it is as important for NK to trade ambassadors with the US as to have a nuclear weapons problem (for a lot of reasons, but it might help to realize that their nuclear program is a bit of an attention-getting device and not intended to get them bombs to use).
Your linked article says that "Bush is dealing with the issue head on." But is he? Six-party talks doesn't sound so "head on" to me, especially after his clear and public insults of the country.
Of the two Presidents, which one has seen North Korea increase its production of nuclear fuel? Which one has seen the test firing of a missle?
Bush-apologists (like yourself) spend a lot of time blaming Clinton for Bush's problems. This is a pretty clear case of Bush completely rejecting the Clinton-backed Agreed Framework and replacing it with, literally, nothing. And now we see the fruits of that effort by Bush. The Bush Administration's hatred of all things Clinton has actually demonstratively made this country less safe.
Here's a quote (understatement of the year, IMO), from the linked piece above:
�The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,� a senior administration official said this week.
No kidding.
|
| 198 | Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Fri, Apr 13, 2007, 17:35
|
LOL
|
| 199 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Apr 13, 2007, 17:51
|
LMAO...Nice post Trip.
|
| 200 | Perm Dude
ID: 50955206
Sat, Oct 20, 2007, 19:02
|
Bill Maher personally boots protester
|
| 201 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Oct 20, 2007, 19:25
|
Bill Maher personally boots protester
Got to love it, there's these wacko 911 conspiracy theorists now apparently who claim the government was really behind 9/11.
Maher is in the Bush camp on this issue but you have to wonder what these people are thinking f'ing up his show screaming about 9/11.
Please it's a TV show save the rant for roto guru political forums.
|
| 202 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Oct 22, 2007, 08:45
|
Yeah, I saw that. Such a tremendous number of comments related to this at HuffPost, too (cos Maher occasionally blogs there). Many of the comments are pro-911 conspiracists, but to me, the issue is less about whether these folks have a case and more about what Never says in that this was not the forum for them to interrupt. They have been upset ever since Maher mocked them as part of his "new rules" a few weeks back, but at the end of the day, his show is entertainment, with his rules, and it's not an audience participation event. He spells that out in his pissed off reaction to the interrupters. Don't mess with live TV! (and an entertainer's stage).
|
| 203 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 17:44
|
Shortly after the 9/11 protesters were removed from the building, Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion who is running for President of Russia was interviewed.
His wit and cynicism, both anti Putin and Bush, made for a great interview. As guest Chris Matthews pointed out...can you imagine one of our candidates talking in a foreign language and coming off that intelligent?
Kasparov on Real Time
|
| 204 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:30
|
I think these 911 Truthers just want their day in court so to say. They feel they have compelling evidence, and just want a Big Media venue in which to present it. So they moved it up a notch. Seldom are they allowed to speak to Big Media. And there is never any discussion of the nuts and bolts of their argument, they are just automatically dismissed at whackos. One would think that since they are such crackpots, that Big Media would want to put them on the air to let them shoot themselves in the foot. Show what idiots they are. But that seldom happens. I wonder why. IMO ratings would be huge for that show. All the 911 truthers tuning in, plus because nobody else is doing a show like that. So there must be some other reason that they are banned from Big Media.......Like maybe they are actually on to something.
|
| 205 | Perm Dude
ID: 40946256
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:35
|
Big ratings would only occur if people were interested enough to tune in. Watching self-promoters yak on about widespread government conspiracies isn't something many Americans are interested in seeing.
In any case, it was Maher's show, not theirs.
pd
|
| 206 | walk
ID: 7952415
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:40
|
Right, I don't think Maher's show = big media. They were upset that Maher based them a few weeks prior as crackpots, but ultimately, they basically displayed poor table manners by interrupting his show and his guests. You could see his guests were stunned and not sure what to do, and the audience was booing the conspiracy theorists to just shut up so that the show could go on. It would be nice if they did have a venue without having to cross this line of decorum, but they don't, so they made a judgment call to sorta act out in this political forum, but while the show is a political discussion, it aint one that includes the audience. Man, Maher was pissed.
|
| 207 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 13:33
|
Maher was pissed but I think to an extent it made kind of a unique entertainment moment.
Maher came off looking really smart in the end I thought and the conspiracy theorists just ended up looking stupid.
It was pretty cool the way he went into the audience and helped throw the guy out. Most of his reactions to the protesters were pretty funny.
The cow comment off the top of his head was classic as was the "that's right lady I'll throw your ass outta here too."
There's really not much they could have accomplished by screaming at the stage.
It's completely seperate from my opinion of whether or not their theories have any validity.
|
| 208 | walk
ID: 7952415
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 13:56
|
Agree, Nerve. I laughed at his facial expressions of exasperation and the cow crack. I also liked the way he went in there and helped move the pile.
|
| 209 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, May 24, 2010, 00:20
|
New Rule: The Republican leadership in America must produce their birth certificates! Not because I doubt they're Americans, I just want to make sure they're not eight-years-old.
|
| 210 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, May 24, 2010, 10:25
|
Finally, one hallmark of not being adult is a tendency to exaggerate. Like this week when Newt Gingrich said "the Obama administration represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did." Which is basically saying Obama is a billion times worse than any president ever! No, he's infinity times worse!
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|