It speaks volumes about ABC that they feel the need to plant an intellectual lightweight like Maher on this panel just to be a “flashpoint”. And they have the nerve to look down on other networks?

I was waiting for Maher to respond by pointing to the car bomb found in Time Square. That terrorist act was obviously the action of violent Moms and Pops at the tea parties. Or maybe Glenn Beck did it himself. I’m sure there was a McCain-Palin bumper sticker on the vehicle. Etc. etc. etc.

There’s nothing fiery about these clips.

@msigmon: Admittedly, relative to what viewers are accustomed to seeing on cable news, this was fairly tame. But relative to network Sunday mornings? I stand by my ‘fiery’ description.

Actually, the real fact checking will have to be done on Matthew Dowd’s bullshit statement that when Bush tried to do Immigration reform the Dems killed it. That was a damn lie. It was Republicans who killed it and they did so because they were caving to the same nativism they’re caving to now only, back then they didn’t call themselves teabaggers. There were simply Republicans and Conservatives. Maher was also spot on when he stated that if blacks were running around with guns and incoherent signs at the Capital, with threats to take back their country, it would not be tolerated the way the tebaggers are!

Bush’s immigration reform was defeated by a coalition of conservatives who were opposed to any type of amnesty – however devised – and liberals (like Barack Obama) who wanted the issue and were afraid that if reform were passed that Republicans would pickup Hispanic votes.

To be sure, much of the defeat was due to conservative opposition. But they had help from the left.

As to Maher and Will: Well, this is a nice change of pace from the usual Sunday fare but I’m not sure that a steady diet of it would help. The Mahers of the hard left – like the Becks and Limbaughs of the hard right – say so many things that are just flat out wrong that to have these bomb throwers on more serious programs will lead to the adults having to spend half their time correcting the mis-statements.

It is funny listening to Maher complain about the leftwing being shutout in America when he appears on a show with open socialists like Sharpton and Vanden Heuvel. The reason the hard left isn’t listened to, Bill, is because of people like you.

Correction: Then Senator Obama voted in favor of the final immigration bill in 2007.

ABC fired Maher a couple of years ago for the exact same reason. The round table was shocked when he stated that all conservatives are racists. There is simply no place for idiots like Hannity and Maher on television. They are ONLY out for the shock factor. Oh, and Reverend Sharpton. Go out and get a real job.
The blacks would do alot better without jerks like you

Haha,,PoilitiFact already checked out Mahers statement and concluded he was wrong…

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/02/bill-maher/bill-maher-and-george-will-spar-over-oil-and-brazi/

Bill needs to be a lot more careful in his wording when he is around intellectual heavyweights like George Will. That shit ain’t gonna fly. lol

Still love you, Bill!

Maher was wrong when he said Brazil was ‘off oil’ — but Politifact says half of Brazil’s vehicles are flexible fuel using fuel derived from Sugar cane and ethanol.

flexible fuel using fuel derived from Sugar cane and ethanol

But the United States cannot meet its energy needs from growing biofuels the way that a Brazil can. Besides, as we learned with our experience with ethanol, it disrupts the agricultural sector of our economy and drives up food costs.

It’s just not a good example to cite.

Adkins, he was wrong. get over it, don’t try to make him like only sorta wrong. If they are #7 in the world in consumption, they’re a long ways from “off” oil. He stepped on his crank, case closed.

Re the “all Republicans are not racists but all racists are Republicans” line by Maher.

It’s a cute line but no one seriously believes that, for example, the white ethnic Americans who still live in northeastern cities like Boston, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia and who indeed are racists vote Republican.

As their grandfathers and fathers did, they still vote Democrats.

Yes, many of them have moved to the suburbs and now vote Republican. But not all.

Just how effective is this ethanol?

Check this out:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

“UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that’s a very bad idea.

Patzek’s ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

“Limiting yourself to the energy balance, and within that balance, just the fossil fuel used, is just scraping the surface of the problem,” he says. “Corn is not ‘free energy.’”

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

Patzek is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming in developing nations where surgarcane and trees are grown as feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels. Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of plantations hundreds of billions of tons of raw material.

“One farm for the local village probably makes sense,” he says. “But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that’s a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece .”

Continued in next comment due to Mediaite rejecting comments with multiple links.

Why is it that the media cries about Limbaugh but a buffoon like Bill Maher is heralded with first seat access to whatever outlet is willing to bend over?

Then there are the phony cleaner air claims:

“The general state of air pollutions appears not to have been improved, suggesting the difficulty in resolving air pollution issues. On the other hand, a current problem specific to ethanol-fuel is the aldehydes or other carcinogenic components in exhaust. Peak formaldehyde concentration, for example, have been reported to have reached 159 ppb in SPMA, which may be one of the highest levels shown in ambient air.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1720061

Or this:

Stanford University atmospheric chemist Mark Z. Jacobson, author of the study said [2]:

“Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution, but our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.”

All together now: GO ETHANOL!!!!!!!!

Maher is..and always has been..an idiot, yet is an intellectual leading light on the left. He could say the same imbecilic statements he did on This Week on his show and the idiotic baboons he gets for an audience would grunt, shriek, and hoot their approval.

I love it when these morons get out of their low IQ echo chambers and spew their nonsense..only to get slapped down. It happens to Zsa Zsa Huffington every time she goes on one of the Sunday shows. She’s just too stupid to know she’s been made a fool of though.

Why is it that the media cries about Limbaugh but a buffoon like Bill Maher is heralded with first seat access to whatever outlet is willing to bend over?

Maher is a comic who thinks he’s a pundit. He should stick to telling jokes.

He’s bad at both.

Maher needs to remember the audience of sunday morning talks shows is informed, unlike the stoner liberals that watch him on real time. He’s not used to having to be correct with what he says.

What’s interesting is how George Will looked like a complete fool on the full roundtable discussion as he obviously has not really read the AZ law and how Mediate makes him seem such a reasonable fellow.

How was Will wrong about the AZ law? If you are going to say it, please back it up so it can be debated.

( http ://www.clotheshops.us)
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l–e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

George, and this board, keep bringing up the fact that it is the same as Federal law for 70 years. Sharpton rightly pointed out that that is not. The ‘requiring papers’ is the same but how the police go about ENFORCING that law. (reasonable suspicion) is different.

Nowhere does the Federal Law include the part about stopping for reasonable suspicion, so it IS NOT the same law. Only parts of it are the same. The requirements are the same, the enforcement is different.

I am amazed that George Will and the righties can’t comprehend this. Personally I think they do, but they prefer to lie.

Nowhere does the Federal Law include the part about stopping for reasonable suspicion, so it IS NOT the same law.

But the state law does not permit state officers to stop someone simply based on “reasonable suspicion” that someone is here illegally.

State officers may only stop a person if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.

Once that standard is met and if the office believes that there is another “reasonable suspicion” that the person is here illegally they may then inquire about the person’s immigration status.

Two standards must be met before the immigration status of a person can be determined.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
May 2, 2010 at 9:54 pm

Are you suggesting that the federal law says they are required to carry their papers… but the police (or law enforcement) have no method of checking, asking, or enforcing that rule? And that doesn’t strike you as dumb-dumb stupid?

“Are you suggesting that the federal law says they are required to carry their papers… but the police (or law enforcement) have no method of checking, asking, or enforcing that rule?”

I’m not sure, but I think the feds enforce the law after a lawful arrest. Anyway, my main point is that the laws are different, and I don’t understand how anyone can argue they are the same when one contains the controversial statements “reasonable suspicion” and “lawful contact” and the other doesn’t.

Sounds pretty different to me.

And SteveMG, why do you guys ALWAYS talk about stopping someone LIKE EVERYONE drives a car. What about the passengers in the car. Are they required to show papers when the driver can’t produce a license? Is that “lawful contact”? I bet if you are Hispanic those passengers WOULD be required, but if they were White, not so much.

And what about if your dog is barking or your music is too loud and the police are called. Once again, Hispanics…show papers…Whites…nevermind.

This is what makes the state law different from the federal law. Believe me, if there was a foolproof way to only ask illegal immigrants for their required papers, I would be all for that. Fuck ‘em. But under the current Arizona law I don’t see how it is possible to accomplish this w/o erroneously asking a larger majority of Hispanic CITIZENS for their papers than their White citizen counterparts. That is racial profiling.

That’s who I care about protecting, the the American citizen.
You know, that guy the tea partiers keep saying they care so much about saving from govt intrusion? lol

Oh, don’t forget the part of the Arizona law where it says police can be sued if they DON’T investigate illegal status.
That is also not in the federal law, yet George Will misrepresents that they are the same law.

Sharpton was right, Will was wrong.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
May 2, 2010 at 11:01 pm

But under the current Arizona law I don’t see how it is possible to accomplish this w/o erroneously asking a larger majority of Hispanic CITIZENS for their papers than their White citizen counterparts. That is racial profiling.

I like that you speak of these “incidents” with absolute certainty. Of course… none of this has happened yet, so as for now, you’re just “making stuff up,” but I guess you think it’s “evidence,” so whatever.

But onto the larger point of “profiling.” As I’ve said over and over again… There are the folks who are against any type of profiling, and there are the folks who are against everyone getting profiled because it’s bureaucratic and a waste of time and money. Most people are part of the second group, and recognize (again, with the airline as an example… that screening grandma just to be “fair,” doesn’t make sense). However, there are a group of folks who are part of both groups… they don’t want everyone to be “profiled,” nor do they want “anyone” to be profiled.

Is that where you stand, Big F?

Oh… and if someone wants to answer my question from the other day -What should we do instead of the AZ law, what’s another solution to the problem- I’ll be interested to hear it.

You’re talking about “evidence” I gave when I clearly said “I don’t see”, meaning that this is only my opinion. Stop being a drama queen.

Imo you are being naive if you think that an officer , under pressure of being sued, is not going to investigate Hispanic households more thoroughly than White households

I believe you know this and that is why your second paragraph hints at the usefulness for profiling.

“IT’S NOT PROFILING BUT IF IT IS IT’S GOOD!!!” LOL

Oh, and when I say profiling, I mean racial profiling of course. Something you conveniently left out of your post to soft-sell it. Nice trick.

And to answer your question, I am against all racial profiling, but not all profiling.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0mqxAIC2N

Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

As far as “reasonable suspicion” is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It’s not race — Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: “Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling,” says Kobach. “An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.” That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

We’ll see how Tapper follows up this week with his own fact checking.

Brian Rogiers …Don’t think for a moment common sense will prevail with these idiots. It has nothing to do with actual laws, case law, precedent, or common sense, it has everything to do with liberals and dems winning elections. They don’t give a flying fark about laws, beheadings, ak47′s, costs to society etc. All they care about is adding adding another voting block of dependent democrats.

The death of innocent citizens and especially of law enforcement officers is nothing more than collateral damage. “Please slash my throat last” is the group mentality.

And SteveMG, why do you guys ALWAYS talk about stopping someone LIKE EVERYONE drives a car. What about the passengers in the car

We use the car case just as example.

The law is clear. As is the requirement now, a police officer must have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed or about to be committed before he may have lawful contact with that person. Not everyone in the car, not everyone walking with that person. That person.

Once lawful contact has occurred, if the officer believes with “reasonable suspicion” that the person’s is here illegally, he/she may inquire about their immigration status.

Two hurdles, two requirements.

Look, if you think the police will abuse the law, fine. But let’s quote the law correctly first.

Bill Maher must have a brain the size of a peanut. To make the statement, ” if you are racist, your more then likely to be a republican”, and there are people out there that actually believe that tripe. That statement is analogous to, if your a race baiter, your more then likely to be from the liberal left, or if your a communist, your more then likely to be Jewish, or all Italians belong to the Mafia, etc.. I used to look forward to the Round Table Discussion on sundays, as long as their going to bring on mentally challenged people as Maher and Sharpton, I won’t be watching the show again any time soon.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
May 3, 2010 at 1:33 am

And to answer your question, I am against all racial profiling, but not all profiling.

Okay… so what kind of profiling would you like to see?

And… how would you fix the AZ situation?

“And to answer your question, I am against all racial profiling, but not all profiling.”

How do you reconcile the statistical facts per the feds that 3/4 of all illegal immigrants in the US are of Hispanic origin with the vast majority of that group Mexican. Could that number be even higher for AZ b/c they are a main entry point for illegal Mexicans to enter the US? I’ll go out on a limb here and say it is.

So, if an AZ official takes that fact into consideration when deciding if he has a reasonable basis to inquire further for a drunk and disorderly call (no car involved) is he guilty of racial profiling or is he using his knowledge of the fed’s own reports to make his decision?

What would you set as the official policy for him to follow?

Most of our illegal aliens are from Mexico. To find them, Mexicans will have to be questioned. If the left has a way of finding illegals from Mexico without ever questioning Mexicans, let’s hear it.

A great highlight clip of Bill Maher on This Week (also includes the web-only Green Room segment):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJPG1mWiow8

Bill gives his take on the oil leak, immigration, Charlie Crist, and Jay Leno’s performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Do the “rights” of illegal aliens trump the the safety and rights of legal aliens and US Citizens?

The fact that someone had the bad judgement to put this IDIOT on a serious political show is ridiculous. Bill Maher is a male Joy Behar, a vitriolic airhead. He was out-classed and out IQ-d by at least 40 points. MORON!

>Maher was also spot on when he stated that if blacks were running around with guns and incoherent signs at >the Capital, with threats to take back their country, it would not be tolerated the way the tebaggers are!

What a load of undiluted horse manure. The New Black Panther Party has demonstrated all over the country in the last ten years, WITH their guns on full display. They were most prominent at the Jena 6 controversy in Lousiana, but have appeared elsewhere as well. They are black separatists and take their name from the Black Panther Party of the late 60′s and early 70′s (although technically not related, since the earlier group was Marxist in orientation). We all should have come to you back then – when these black folks were running around with guns and their ‘incoherent’ signs – with threats to CREATE their own country, to see if you would tolerate a bunch of non-blacks doing the same thing now. By the way, I think the members of the New Black Panther Party were ABSOLUTELY CORRECT to march, with their firearms on full display. The same for the Tea Party members, and no, I am not a member of either group.

Aaah; i love Bill Maher, so; fuk you, Mediaite! YES, F. U.!

It 'been a change to two Will Maher, who has caught my attention. Reactions also Tapper, who sometimes were invaluable.
memory card reader

Maher is a professional pain in the ass. That’s why Morgan Fairchild left him for Elena Kagan.

How anyone on this site can compare this idiot Maher to Hannity or Beck is totally beyond me. Hannity is an admitted Republican and doesn’t lie. He simply tells the facts from his point of view and if that doesn’t please you, that’s too bad. And Beck is a patriot who DARES to tell us truths no one else will disclose because they’re all part of their own MSM clique and are afraid to speak out or are too ignorant or lazy to check out what Beck says.

Maher is not in their league…he’s a total idiot and because he attacks Republicans and those who believe in God, some of you think he’s bold and wonderful. People like Maher make me sick and those who support him, in my view, are as dumb as he is.