Man, he’s one smug piece of shit.

I second that notion.

Glad Bill Maher is back!

He’s right.

Clearly, Maher is smarter than everyone that doesn’t agree with him. He loves calling the tea party racist, probably because it helps him get black chicks that would normally find his troll doll face repulsive. That and the hundreds of thousands of dollars he spends on them. He is a punk who was picked on all his life, failed as an actor and comedian and decided to bash the right as the only way to make a living, as most failures in the industry do, i.e. Stewart, Colbert, Behar, O’Donnell.

The Hate-ism of the left continues. I demand that Congress hold hearings and pass a bill that addresses the increasing Hate-ism in this country. The Leftys would even hate that.

Maher is like porn for the left. Equating a diverse group of men such as founding fathers with the contemporary left? It’s not quite that simple. Were Maher not a one-note charlie, he’d know that.

espo222 said:
Clearly, Maher is smarter than everyone that doesn’t agree with him. He loves calling the tea party racist, probably because it helps him get black chicks that would normally find his troll doll face repulsive. That and the hundreds of thousands of dollars he spends on them. He is a punk who was picked on all his life, failed as an actor and comedian and decided to bash the right as the only way to make a living, as most failures in the industry do, i.e. Stewart, Colbert, Behar, O’Donnell.

Actually, the one black chick he was with who went public, called him a crook and a racist.

He’s still right.

espo222 said:
as most failures in the industry do

Lets not forget Ann Coulter,Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.Plus the whole FOX network.

ROCKSTEADY said:
He’s still right.

Really? About what? The Founding Fathers being the 18th century equivalent of liberals? Do you know nothing about economics or the ideals of the enlightenment? They were classical liberals, which has nothing to do with contemporary liberal thought–which owes much more to 20th century collectivist ideologies. Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin were NOT collectivists.

Is anyone surprised that this new reverence for modulated political rhetoric seems to only go one way….

Sean68 said:
Really? About what? The Founding Fathers being the 18th century equivalent of liberals? Do you know nothing about economics or the ideals of the enlightenment? They were classical liberals, which has nothing to do with contemporary liberal thought–which owes much more to 20th century collectivist ideologies. Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin were NOT collectivists.

P.S. And neither was Madison.

Cecelia said:
Is anyone surprised that this new reverence for modulated political rhetoric seems to only go one way….

Who could be offended by Maher’s screed? That’s nice talk.

Jefferson and Madison would have been big fans of the welfare state and affirmative action.

If we could send Maher back in a time machine he wouldn’t last ten minutes before someone horse whipped him to death for being such a little weasly prick. And that’s just the women.

LOL says the half-baked , SOCIALIST/LIBERTARIAN/I HAVE NO FUCKIN WHAT I AM ACTUALLY/ Maher ?

Hey Billy , I got two hookers , for two nickels , you interested ?

NeoKong said:
If we could send Maher back in a time machine he wouldn’t last ten minutes before someone horse whipped him to death for being such a little weasly prick. And that’s just the women.

What! Maher’s a handsome ladies man.

Sean68 said:
Maher is like porn for the left. Equating a diverse group of men such as founding fathers with the contemporary left? It’s not quite that simple. Were Maher not a one-note charlie, he’d know that.

What he was actually doing was nullify any delusion that the Tea Party has of equating themselves to a diverse group of men such as founding fathers. At no point did he say today’s left were like the founding fathers except maybe the ONE thing he says they all agreed on.

murf said:
LOL says the half-baked , SOCIALIST/LIBERTARIAN/I HAVE NO FUCKIN CLUE WHAT I AM ACTUALLY/ Maher ?

Hey Billy , I got two hookers , for two nickels , you interested ?

fixed

Nacho said:
What he was actually doing was nullify any delusion that the Tea Party has of equating themselves to a diverse group of men such as founding fathers. At no point did he say today’s left were like the founding fathers except maybe the ONE thing he says they all agreed on.

I don;t think that was what he was doing. He’s more simplistic than that. The Founding Fathers were very brilliant men; the “tea baggers” are stupid–therefore, they couldn’t possibly have anything thing in common. Which is absolutely false. I would say they have at least as much in common as does someone like Maher.

Sean68 said:
Who could be offended by Maher’s screed? That’s nice talk.

No, you’re not accurately portraying liberal “logic”.

In their minds, unlike what Limbaugh or Savage do, it is not deleterious to our body politic to viciously impugn any conservative…because…..in their case….it’s true….

Cecelia said:
No, you’re not accurately portraying liberal “logic”.

In their minds, unlike what Limbaugh or Savage do, it is not deleterious to our body politic to viciously impugn any conservative…because…..in their case….it’s true….

It doesn’t seem to me that the Mahers of the world could hold the right in any lower contempt, and he has no hesitance in expressing that contempt in the most insulting of terms. This isn’t civil discourse; it’s love. It’s the right that hates. Yep.

Sean68 said:
Jefferson and Madison would have been big fans of the welfare state and affirmative action.

Two people (so far) voted down this comment. I’d like to hear one of you explain what, say, Madison would have made of contemporary welfare state politics. Speak up!

ROCKSTEADY said:
Lets not forget Ann Coulter,Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.Plus the whole FOX network.

Rush and Glenn don’t just make fun of the Left. No one is off limits. That’s the brilliance of Rush. :)

Cecelia said:
No, you’re not accurately portraying liberal “logic”.

In their minds, unlike what Limbaugh or Savage do, it is not deleterious to our body politic to viciously impugn any conservative…because…..in their case….it’s true….

Maher,is defiantly no saint. But you do have to acknowledge his program is on a “premium” pay cable channel and Limbaugh and Savage go out over our free public airwaves.

Cecelia said:
it is not deleterious to our body politic

Damn, you’d better put the bottle away for the night.

Maher has very little original thought and is nothing more then a slightly more obnixous version of Keith Oberman, if KO tried to be a kind of comic. His show is a horrible bore and he lacks the humor, satire and the clever writers who toil for Jon Stewart.
Add the audience recruited by MoveOn or People’s Daily and you are reminded of the North Koreans who watched the world cup with the conductor who told them when to cheer.
Maher is so clueless and so far off base that most ignore him. For satire or criticsm to work it has to be based in truth..something that Maher is incapable of.

Nacho said:
Maher,is defiantly no saint. But you do have to acknowledge his program is on a “premium” pay cable channel and Limbaugh and Savage go out over our free public airwaves.

Actually, Maher’s free too if you know how to find it. Cough…newsgroups…cough…cough.

This is the same guy who says we ought to be more like Europe and that Brazil doesn’t use much oil. He is obviously too busy to do any reading, but that doesn’t stop him from pontificating. I must confess, though, I like to watch his show. I just don’t take him seriously. I’d never say, write a blog piece about his views like Mediaite does. Jon Stewart runs laps around Maher.

Thanks, Bill. I too can put words together that make absolutely no sense: The Founding Fathers would have hated your guts, Bill, because double espresso mocha locha choca latte.

James Taranto of the WSJ is posing this:

“Theory: Palin-hatred has become more consuming as Obama-worship has given way to disillusion.”

Agreed.

standfast24 said:
Maher has very little original thought and is nothing more then a slightly more obnixous version of Keith Oberman, if KO tried to be a kind of comic. His show is a horrible bore and he lacks the humor, satire and the clever writers who toil for Jon Stewart.
Add the audience recruited by MoveOn or People’s Daily and you are reminded of the North Koreans who watched the world cup with the conductor who told them when to cheer.
Maher is so clueless and so far off base that most ignore him. For satire or criticsm to work it has to be based in truth..something that Maher is incapable of.

That pretty much sums him up.

Sean68 said:
Really? About what? The Founding Fathers being the 18th century equivalent of liberals? Do you know nothing about economics or the ideals of the enlightenment? They were classical liberals, which has nothing to do with contemporary liberal thought–which owes much more to 20th century collectivist ideologies. Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin were NOT collectivists.

Whether its Maher or Beck, any attempt to attribute a modern political philosophy to the Founding Fathers is a misguided endeavor. Indeed, the Founding Fathers (a term not created until the early 20th century) were classic liberal, which today imprecisely resembles what Ron Paul espouses.

Maher was making a good argument poorly; what he meant to say was that the Founding Fathers were intellectuals, which he conflates in his mind with liberalism. Both the modern Tea Party and the Republican party contain a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism or anti-elitism that the Founding Fathers would have disapproved of since they were educated, wealthy men.

This is why Madison helped create a republic as opposed to a direct democracy, so that the “tyranny of the majority” could be check by elites such as himself and the federal government. Scary thought, I know; just don’t tell Glenn Beck (PhD of American “history”)

Alz said:
James Taranto of the WSJ is posing this:

“Theory: Palin-hatred has become more consuming as Obama-worship has given way to disillusion.”

Agreed.

That’s insightful. Though the media is working over time trying damned hard to persuade the country he’s got the mojo back.

the real john t said:
Damn, you’d better put the bottle away for the night.

Was it deleterious or body politic that threw you?

SuperChuñdy said:
Whether its Maher or Beck, any attempt to attribute a modern political philosophy to the Founding Fathers is a misguided endeavor. Indeed, the Founding Fathers (a term not created until the early 20th century) were classic liberal, which today imprecisely resembles what Ron Paul espouses.

Maher was making a good argument poorly; what he meant to say was that the Founding Fathers were intellectuals, which he conflates in his mind with liberalism. Both the modern Tea Party and the Republican party contain a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism or anti-elitism that the Founding Fathers would have disapproved of since they were educated, wealthy men.

This is why Madison helped create a republic as opposed to a direct democracy, so that the “tyranny of the majority” could be check by elites such as himself and the federal government. Scary thought, I know; just don’t tell Glenn Beck (PhD of American “history”)

That;s about as good a defense as you could give him. Nevertheless, in terms of political and economic philosophy the “tea baggers” have more in common with the Founders than any contemporary left wing collectivist. Though other than asshole, I’m not quite sure what Maher is.

The 2012 election is getting closer,but it’s still a-ways away. If the liberals are this deranged now, I wonder how much deeper can they go?

How deep is this psychosis of theirs?

Sean68 said:
Though other than asshole, I’m not quite sure what Maher is.

I prefer “Modern Liberal/Progressive” – the deep down, idealogical types.

Alz said:
The 2012 election is getting closer,but it’s still a-ways away. If the liberals are this deranged now, I wonder how much deeper can they go?

How deep is this psychosis of theirs?

The jobless rate could be 20% and they’d still blame his loss on racism. Just you wait.

Jesus, Maher’s a fucking idiot. Even central government advocates like Hamilton and Adams wouldn’t recognize what this country has become, nor would they endorse it. Maher’s ignorance of the fairly elementary differences between political ideologies is simply breathtaking.

Maher bills himself as a Libertarian. Which leads me to believe he doesn’t even understand what that word means. He’s a lot of things, but Libertarian isn’t one of them. Douchebag yes, Libertarian no.

He’s just big-government statist who wants to smoke weed and bang whores, unencumbered. I’m not sure what you call that.

Sean68 said:
Two people (so far) voted down this comment. I’d like to hear one of you explain what, say, Madison would have made of contemporary welfare state politics. Speak up!

This is the problem with looking to the founding era as a guide to today’s problems: the time periods are too different. Would we use 18th century medical texts to cure any disease today?

But let’s assume that Madison was reincarnated (a sort of reverse “death panel”), he would probably be against the “welfare state” since he could be assumed to believe in “personal responsibility.” However, Madison would be equally dismayed by the concentration of economic power in several large comglomerates such as GE, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, etc. He’d be dismayed about the inability of the federal government to solve national problems because it’s been stymied by nefarious factions (i.e. special interest groups). But he’d be dismayed most by Senators that no longer work in good faith with one another. For Madison, the welfare state would be a symptom of the systemic problems with our modern form of his government.

Both the Founding Father would naturally be opposed to affirmative action. You know, because they owned human being. Jefferson, on the other hand would favor it because he had a bad case of “jungle fever” (also too owned people).

Sean68 said:
That;s about as good a defense as you could give him. Nevertheless, in terms of political and economic philosophy the “tea baggers” have more in common with the Founders than any contemporary left wing collectivist. Though other than asshole, I’m not quite sure what Maher is.

Look up the Whiskey Rebellion and tell me if the “Tea Baggers” would have approved of Hamilton’s economic policies and Washington reaction to the “popular uprising”.

God Bless Bill Maher. (I mean if there was a God)

He is our Rush Limbaugh, only he’s not a fat stupid drug addict.

He is a Master Baiter. :)

Hey! The “Whiskey Party”… that’s what we need! I recall that back in the day we had a whiskey rebellion. President Washington sent troops to put it down. When Jefferson (in France at the time… I believe) heard about it he said, (paraphrasing) “It’s good to have a rebellion now and then.” Wow… that sounds a lot like Tea Party thinking.

IIWII said:
Hey! The “Whiskey Party”… that’s what we need! I recall that back in the day we had a whiskey rebellion. President Washington sent troops to put it down. When Jefferson (in France at the time… I believe) heard about it he said, (paraphrasing) “It’s good to have a rebellion now and then.” Wow… that sounds a lot like Tea Party thinking.

I couldn’t agree more; Obama needs to take control of the army and suppress the Tea party. You realize how stupid you sound right? No, you probably don’t.

BFD said:
God Bless Bill Maher. (I mean if there was a God)

He is our Rush Limbaugh, only he’s not a fat stupid drug addict.

He is a Master Baiter. :)

I never thought about him this way, but I think you’re mostly right.

SuperChuñdy said:
I couldn’t agree more; Obama needs to take control of the army and suppress the Tea party. You realize how stupid you sound right? No, you probably don’t.

Read my post more s-l-o-w-l-y. You missed the point. It is what JEFFERSON said… a little rebellion against an oppressive government is good now and then.

SuperChuñdy said:
This is the problem with looking to the founding era as a guide to today’s problems: the time periods are too different. Would we use 18th century medical texts to cure any disease today?

But let’s assume that Madison was reincarnated (a sort of reverse “death panel”), he would probably be against the “welfare state” since he could be assumed to believe in “personal responsibility.” However, Madison would be equally dismayed by the concentration of economic power in several large comglomerates such as GE, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, etc. He’d be dismayed about the inability of the federal government to solve national problems because it’s been stymied by nefarious factions (i.e. special interest groups). But he’d be dismayed most by Senators that no longer work in good faith with one another. For Madison, the welfare state would be a symptom of the systemic problems with our modern form of his government.

Both the Founding Father would naturally be opposed to affirmative action. You know, because they owned human being. Jefferson, on the other hand would favor it because he had a bad case of “jungle fever” (also too owned people).

Look up the Whiskey Rebellion and tell me if the “Tea Baggers” would have approved of Hamilton’s economic policies and Washington reaction to the “popular uprising”.

I like how you put personal responsibility in quotes, something Madison would never do. I think you’re making my point for me. Maher concedes nothing to the tea baggers. He’s attacking them and grants them nothing.

Sean68 said:
The jobless rate could be 20% and they’d still blame his loss on racism. Just you wait.

Yup. Liberals and “Negros” need to get over the whole racism thing. Yeah you were enslaved as property,but that was like over 140 years ago! Yeah “colored people” were not allowed to use the same drinking fountains, but that was like 60 years ago! Yeah black people still face racism today, but at least you’re still not shackled. I mean come on! Amirite folks?

The last refuge of the disgruntled white man: the reverse race card.

I didn’t realize that Maher was an authority on the Founding Fathers. I guess he speaks for everyone now, you and me included. I thought he was only an expert on the going rate of prostitutes in the downtown Los Angeles area. Now I know better.

I’m just shocked that he didn’t place Sarah Palin at the scene of the AZ shooting, impaling Mexican children with crucifixes as she fled. That’s next week’s show, I assume.

Bill Maher: The Left’s favorite bigot.

SuperChuñdy said:
Yup. Liberals and “Negros” need to get over the whole racism thing. Yeah you were enslaved as property,but that was like over 140 years ago! Yeah “colored people” were not allowed to use the same drinking fountains, but that was like 60 years ago! Yeah black people still face racism today, but at least you’re still not shackled. I mean come on! Amirite folks?

The last refuge of the disgruntled white man: the reverse race card.

What does that have to do with the impact of a 20% unemployment rate on the re-election prospects of an ineffective president?

Sean68 said:
Jefferson and Madison would have been big fans of the welfare state and affirmative action.

Two people (so far) voted down this comment. I’d like to hear one of you explain what, say, Madison would have made of contemporary welfare state politics. Speak up!

Let’s start with a quote of two from Jefferson’s first inaugural address:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

In response to your claim Jefferson would have supported affirmative action … tell that to his slaves.

SuperChuñdy said:
Yup. Liberals and “Negros” need to get over the whole racism thing. Yeah you were enslaved as property,but that was like over 140 years ago! Yeah “colored people” were not allowed to use the same drinking fountains, but that was like 60 years ago! Yeah black people still face racism today, but at least you’re still not shackled. I mean come on! Amirite folks? The last refuge of the disgruntled white man: the reverse race card.

I DEMAND REPARATIONS! My great-great-grandfather volunteered to fight for the Union in the Civil War and free the slaves. He lost his hearing, eyesight and eventually his kidney functions as a result of his service. And he enlistind because of a moral obligation to his fellow man. He (nor any of my family) ever owned a slave. Where’s my money????????

SuperChuñdy said:
Yup. Liberals and “Negros” need to get over the whole racism thing. Yeah you were enslaved as property,but that was like over 140 years ago! Yeah “colored people” were not allowed to use the same drinking fountains, but that was like 60 years ago! Yeah black people still face racism today, but at least you’re still not shackled. I mean come on! Amirite folks?

The last refuge of the disgruntled white man: the reverse race card.

You think a sudden change in the malignant hearts of whites will have any effect on what’s wrong with black America? Please explain.

Graeme Edgeler said:
Let’s start with a quote of two from Jefferson’s first inaugural address:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

In response to your claim Jefferson would have supported affirmative action … tell that to his slaves.

That wasn’t useful at all.

IIWII said:
Read my post more s-l-o-w-l-y. You missed the point. It is what JEFFERSON said… a little rebellion against an oppressive government is good now and then.

Also it during Shays’ rebellion that TJ said the whole rebellion thingamajig, not the Whiskey rebellion. Mine was an error of carelessness; your error was one of cluelessness.

But I’m curious if you think the Obama administration is oppressive? Is it the taxes? the new onerous regulations?

*enlisted sorry.

tigerprez said:
I didn’t realize that Maher was an authority on the Founding Fathers.

When did your RW buddy Sean68 become an expert on the Founding Fathers? OH! That’s right, he isn’t, but he thinks he is.

SuperChuñdy said:
Also it during Shays’ rebellion that TJ said the whole rebellion thingamajig, not the Whiskey rebellion. Mine was an error of carelessness; your error was one of cluelessness. But I’m curious if you think the Obama administration is oppressive? Is it the taxes? the new onerous regulations?

I stand corrected. Yes, it was Shays Rebellion… but my point stands… it was the fact we need rebellion now and then.

SuperChuñdy said:
Also it during Shays’ rebellion that TJ said the whole rebellion thingamajig, not the Whiskey rebellion. Mine was an error of carelessness; your error was one of cluelessness.

But I’m curious if you think the Obama administration is oppressive? Is it the taxes? the new onerous regulations?

For the record, I don’t think it’s oppressive in terms of taxes. But then I don; think that’s the only issue by a long shot that animates the tea party people.

IIWII said:
I DEMAND REPARATIONS! My great-great-grandfather volunteered to fight for the Union in the Civil War and free the slaves. He lost his hearing, eyesight and eventually his kidney functions as a result of his service. And he enlistind because of a moral obligation to his fellow man. He (nor any of my family) ever owned a slave. Where’s my money????????

Ask the Confederates in the South that still maintain that secession and nullification are legitimate. And by Civil War, are you actually referring to the War of Northern Aggression?

Dear Me…. More Crap To Read… so I won’t. But I do think that the Founding Fathers would have had Maher executed forthwith.

TristramShandy said:
Dear Me…. More Crap To Read… so I won’t. But I do think that the Founding Fathers would have had Maher executed forthwith.

After arresting him for miscegenation with one of his black hottub bimbos.

SuperChuñdy said:
Ask the Confederates in the South that still maintain that secession and nullification are legitimate. And by Civil War, are you actually referring to the War of Northern Aggression?

I do not speak for others. My G-g-grandfather was from the North… and no, not the War of Northern Aggression. I am speaking of the War of the Rebellion. Or, any of the following names by which it has been known: The War for Constitutional Liberty
The War for Southern Independence
The Second American Revolution
The War for States’ Rights
Mr. Lincoln’s War
The Southern Rebellion
The War for Southern Rights
The War of the Southern Planters
The Second War for Independence
The War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance
The Brothers’ War
The War of Secession
The Great Rebellion
The War for Nationality
The War for Southern Nationality
The War Against Slavery
The Civil War Between the States
The War of the Sixties
The Yankee Invasion
The War for Separation
The War for Abolition
The War for the Union
The Confederate War
The War of the Southrons
The War for Southern Freedom
The War of the North and South
The Lost Cause

Sean68 said:
What does that have to do with the impact of a 20% unemployment rate on the re-election prospects of an ineffective president?

That’s the point. You state that liberal would blame an Obama loss in 2012 on racism, which some would. But to prematurely ejaculate such an argument is lame.

Sean68 said:
You think a sudden change in the malignant hearts of whites will have any effect on what’s wrong with black America? Please explain.

The argument isn’t end racism and blacks will magically be better off; it’s stop deriding every policy intended to help minorities as “racists.” Yes affirmative action disadvantaged whites (and Asians) applying for college, government contracts, and loans, but they are in no way comparable to what blacks and others suffered from centuries in this country.

The former (affirmative action) is intended to help people, the latter (slavery/racism) was at times a systemic effort by the government and society to subjugate racial minorities. The two are not equal.

When North Carolina stops purposely integrating its schools because they think it’s “reverse engineering,” they hurt children (black and white) from receiving the best education possible. While the change is couched as a stand against “reverse-racism,” it has a disproportionate affect on poor black children.

Sean68 said:
For the record, I don’t think it’s oppressive in terms of taxes. But then I don; think that’s the only issue by a long shot that animates the tea party people.

Of course not. But the Tea party uses a very warped version of history espoused by Beck and other that tell them the Founding Father would be on their side. In fact, they’d curse both sides. Yet I still see people in three-cornered hats and powdered wigs who are convinced that liberals are Benedict Arnolds, not just disagreeing.

IIWII said:
I stand corrected. Yes, it was Shays Rebellion… but my point stands… it was the fact we need rebellion now and then.

Depend on what you define as a rebellion: a passionate debate that ends in an electoral victory or “open, organized, and armed resistance to one’s government or ruler” The former is welcomed; the latter treasonous (the type of thing you see in Third World countries.)

IIWII said:
I do not speak for others. My G-g-grandfather was from the North… and no, not the War of Northern Aggression.

You’re grandpappy was probably an honorable man; but almost surely, like others at the time, was paid and housed for his service. He was free before and after the Civil War; he was born free and he died free. That more than can be said for the slaves he freed, who continued to be suppressed economically and politically for another hundred years.

SuperChuñdy said:
That’s the point. You state that liberal would blame an Obama loss in 2012 on racism, which some would. But to prematurely ejaculate such an argument is lame.

Not lame, prescient.

The argument isn’t end racism and blacks will magically be better off; it’s stop deriding every policy intended to help minorities as “racists.” Yes affirmative action disadvantaged whites (and Asians) applying for college, government contracts, and loans, but they are in no way comparable to what blacks and others suffered from centuries in this country.

I was condemning affirmative action on its own merits.

The former (affirmative action) is intended to help people, the latter (slavery/racism) was at times a systemic effort by the government and society to subjugate racial minorities. The two are not equal.

Slavery isn’t practiced anymore. And blacks are more racist than whites these days.

When North Carolina stops purposely integrating its schools because they think it’s “reverse engineering,” they hurt children (black and white) from receiving the best education possible. While the change is couched as a stand against “reverse-racism,” it has a disproportionate affect on poor black children.

Today the problems preventing blacks from achieving are now in every important sense exclusively in the hands of blacks themselves. The white left is an obstacle to this realization.

Of course not. But the Tea party uses a very warped version of history espoused by Beck and other that tell them the Founding Father would be on their side. In fact, they’d curse both sides. Yet I still see people in three-cornered hats and powdered wigs who are convinced that liberals are Benedict Arnolds, not just disagreeing.

Tell that to Bill Maher and his ignorant audience.

Ugh. My comments are in there. Sorry for the confusion.

the real john t said:
When did your RW buddy Sean68 become an expert on the Founding Fathers? OH! That’s right, he isn’t, but he thinks he is.

I’m not a right winger, at least not on economic issues.

Sean68 said:
Really? About what? The Founding Fathers being the 18th century equivalent of liberals? Do you know nothing about economics or the ideals of the enlightenment? They were classical liberals, which has nothing to do with contemporary liberal thought–which owes much more to 20th century collectivist ideologies. Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin were NOT collectivists.

Neither were they conservatives as modeled by the modern teabaggers Maher was attacking. Your point?

Gasket said:
Neither were they conservatives as modeled by the modern teabaggers Maher was attacking. Your point?

Some were “conservative” some were “liberal”. However, by contemporary Bill Maher standards, they were practically Nazis. By the way, I responded to your absurd “argument” that ice cube isn’t a racist and was portraying some sort of character in his hideously racist song “cave bitch.”

Feel the Lefty love!

Folks, just in case you don’t know what’s going on, allow me to clue you in, okay?

The Leftists in America (all19% of them) have been thoroughly rejected by the rest of the country as a result of the collective poor behaviors of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Lefty blogosphere, Liberal Newspapers, magazines and TV pundits.

So as the past week has displayed, the Leftists are in full-on freakout, “get your hate on”, venom spewing mode. Every Liberal rag, and every Liberal big mouth is rabid right now…foaming at the mouth and lashing out at everything within biting distance. They’re only slightly removed from the mental state Loughner was in when he cracked.

Have a nice day! =)

IIWII said:
Read my post more s-l-o-w-l-y. You missed the point. It is what JEFFERSON said… a little rebellion against an oppressive government is good now and then.

The problem is the definition of “oppressive” in that context. The teabaggers have an abstract definition of the word. To them, congress, raising taxes is “oppression.”

Sean68 said:
Slavery isn’t practiced anymore. And blacks are more racist than whites these days.

What? According to what empirical metric? Certainly, they would be more racist now than then because they’d be jailed (or worse) if they acted racist. It’s inarguable that there is less racism today than there has been historically, but does that mean society is no longer culpable for institutional racism that emerges in police practices, drug sentences, jury selection

Sean68 said:
Today the problems preventing blacks from achieving are now in every important sense exclusively in the hands of blacks themselves. The white left is an obstacle to this realization.

If only it were that simple. White and blacks liberals have tried to alleviate the position of racial minorities for less than 50 years. Jim Crow was alive and well only 50 years ago;yet you’re prepared to declare that these policies have failed. For 100 years after the Civil War blacks continued to hold a second class social and political status and in one generation, they were suppose to catch up with the rest of America?

Sean68 said:
Tell that to Bill Maher and his ignorant audience.

Deal: I tell them, if you tell Beck’s audience.

Sean68 said:
Some were “conservative” some were “liberal”. However, by contemporary Bill Maher standards, they were practically Nazis. By the way, I responded to your absurd “argument” that ice cube isn’t a racist and was portraying some sort of character in his hideously racist song “cave bitch.”

I haven’t read the response but can respond to it here. You can not use lyrics in a rap song to define the person as a whole. Ice Cube is not a racist. You may as well call all rappers “racist’ using that myopic viewpoint. It’s a canard.

OxyCon said:
blah blah blah

01/07/2011 08:12 PM
Democrats still outnumber Republicans by a narrow margin, numbering 31 percent of the population to Republicans´ 29 percent. The results were compiled from 21 polls conducted over the course of 2010 and closely mirror the latest Gallup daily tracking poll.

NeoKong said:
NeoKong says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:16 am  (Quote)
16  6
If we could send Maher back in a time machine he wouldn’t last ten minutes before someone horse whipped him to death for being such a little weasly prick. And that’s just the women.

Amen!

Maher would be toothless and his nose with extend beyond his chin. Plus, he wouldn’t have lived past his early twenties before someone tired of his act. There was a pecking order back in those days, and effeminate men like Maher knew their place and understood that the only chance they had to survive was to keep their mouth’s shut and be respective of their betters.

Sean68 said:
. And blacks are more racist than whites these days.

No wonder you made the vacuous point above about Cube.

Gasket said:
I haven’t read the response but can respond to it here. You can not use lyrics in a rap song to define the person as a whole. Ice Cube is not a racist. You may as well call all rappers “racist’ using that myopic viewpoint. It’s a canard.

No, Ice Cube is not a racist,but he is a scourge on society for making Are We There Yet?”

Sean68 said:
After arresting him for miscegenation with one of his black hottub bimbos.

What’s the matter, can’t you stand the thought of a white male having sex with a black female? Or a black male having sex with a white female?

BFD said:
BFD says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:02 am  (Quote)
0  1
OxyCon said:
blah blah blah
01/07/2011 08:12 PM
Democrats still outnumber Republicans by a narrow margin, numbering 31 percent of the population to Republicans´ 29 percent. The results were compiled from 21 polls conducted over the course of 2010 and closely mirror the latest Gallup daily tracking poll.

You just make sure you take comfort in your polls, there BFD! LMAO!

SuperChuñdy said:
No, Ice Cube is not a racist,but he is a scourge on society for making Are We There Yet?”
the real john t says:

HAHAHAHA

OxyCon said:
take comfort in your polls

Ditto to you.

SuperChuñdy said:
No, Ice Cube is not a racist,but he is a scourge on society for making Are We There Yet?”

Haha…I have never watched that movie. Is it that bad?

LOL at O’Reilly screaming Dupnik is an idiot on his show tonight.

I guess Roger Ailes asking his hosts to make their points intellectually didn’t last long!!!!

Gasket said:
Dupnik

Terrible. How did he go from NWA to PTA?

Yeah…because only rightwingers (Sheriff Babeu) are allowed to go on Fox News and bloviate! Considering O’Reilly’c comments last week about the tides and religion, I would not be calling anyone an idiot if I was him. .

BFD said:
LOL at O’Reilly screaming Dupnik is an idiot on his show tonight.

I switched over to watch a little of that (which is all I can stand). O’Reilly said whenever him and Beck go on one of their tours there’s always some police officers there. Well DUUUUUHHHH! That’s because they request them.

He’s right again, people. Deal.

January 14, 2011 01:05 PM EST

A new McClatchy-Marist poll shows President Barack Obama with a commanding lead over three of the top contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Sarah Palin fared the worst, trailing Obama 56-30 percent in the latest nationwide poll.

Buh-Bye Sarah. :)

Hahahaha, as usual Bill Hit a home run and out of the park. Most of what he said was true.

You can tell by the sour grapes commetns here. most cannot handle the truth.

But they will be forced to deal with it come 2012.

Maher isn’t wrong. He’s being a bit hyperbolic and puerile, sure, but he’s shining some light on the truth of things.

Put aside whatever your political beliefs are and just think about it. The Tea Party really doesn’t jive with the ideals of the founding fathers. They seemingly hate people like Carl Sagan and Barack Obama, and they’re a lot like the founding fathers.

Amusing to watch Maher burrow completely under right wing skin.

haha

Sean68 said:
Actually, Maher’s free too if you know how to find it. Cough…newsgroups…cough…cough.

I didn’t even know newsgroups still existed. Good grief.

SuperChuñdy said:
No, Ice Cube is not a racist,but he is a scourge on society for making Are We There Yet?”

He made Amerikkka’s Most Wanted so he is forgiven.

shame on Sarah Palin for orchestrating this horror in arizona from her Wasilla home

Sean68 said:
Actually, the one black chick he was with who went public, called him a crook and a racist.

She also said he little shit had a tiny pecker.

Paul Westlake said:
Amusing to watch Maher burrow completely under right wing skin.haha

Exactly. Just as he stokes the flames of insanity in the Left like a full moon.

Maher is nothing more than a little man with a terrible inferiority complex. He gets-off by gaining attention the only way a no-talent jerk can……………by being as outrageous as he can. He changes his “philosophy” any time the boredom meter starts rising.

Take the spotlight away and Bill Maher dissipates into the air like a weak fart.

So, mediaite embraces and endorses the hate speech of the left – howsurprising NOT.

Too funny how Maher is “provacative” when it’s the other way, say a consersavtive makes a statement it’s “controversial”.

Typical liberal media bias.

The hatred continues, and mediaite continues to be an active player and an avid supporter of the hate.

Congratulations Dan, you have sealed your fate as a member of the hate brigade.

Amusing to watch Maher burrow completely under right wing skin.haha

Exactly. Just as he stokes the flames of insanity in the Left like a full moon.

Maher is nothing more than a little man with a terrible inferiority complex. He gets-off by gaining attention the only way a no-talent jerk can……………by being as outrageous as he can. He changes his “philosophy” any time the boredom meter starts rising.

Take the spotlight away and Bill Maher dissipates into the air like a weak fart.

KING watching . This young hunk simply MUST do somthing about his locks . Yes , one must use conditioner , but one must rinse it out , mustn’t one ?
Reminder – My new RRK line of cosmetics will appear at a boutique counter near you this spring . Ta ta .

Ahhh…more seething rage from leftist media hacks. I LOVE it! It’s our barometer on how things are going for ‘them.’ The angrier they get, the worse things are for them. So, Leftists…keep the rage going!

Another “D-Bagger” gives his take on “Tea Baggers”.

Sean68 said:
Actually, the one black chick he was with who went public, called him a crook and a racist.

By the way you are wrong, Bill Maher has dated more than one black woman. Please provide documentation where “one black chick he was with who went public, called him a crook and a racist” I would like to see that, especially given the first part of your post was completely false. Is this what you are talking about? I hope not. I would not make such statement on with attacks going back and forth in a law suit. Obviously a reasonable person would have credibility issues with this claim.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/maher-ex-serial-shakedown-artist

The tea party is still a racists organization.

Sean68 said:
Really? About what? The Founding Fathers being the 18th century equivalent of liberals? Do you know nothing about economics or the ideals of the enlightenment? They were classical liberals, which has nothing to do with contemporary liberal thought–which owes much more to 20th century collectivist ideologies. Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin were NOT collectivists.

Really Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist, early on. He wanted George Washington to be named king. He believed in a very strong federal government. He argued for a central bank which was opposed by the Jeffersonites, who later became the Democrat Republicans. Unlike the other founding fathers, save John Adams he opposed slavery. He was the only founding father to join an anti-slavery organization.

The founding fathers had diverse views. Bill Maher was right. Thomas Jefferson wrote is own version of the Bible. He had fews on religion more in line with Bill Maher than most people would suspect. I am sure most of you have never read the Jefferson bible.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

It is very interesting to separate facts from mythology.

Sean68 said:
Jefferson and Madison would have been big fans of the welfare state and affirmative action.

Jefferson and Madison has diametrically opposed views on the role of the federal government. Madison supported a strong federal government with a powerful national legislature. Jefferson supported a weak federal government with state control of most issues. This was the fight between the Federalists and the anti-federalists who eventually were called the Democrat-Republicans. There are some wonderful bibliographies of the founding fathers which have been published in the past ten years or so. I have read six or seven. The factually history is much more complex and interesting than the over simplified, rhetorical history, spun by latter day conservatives.

LOL

SuperChuñdy said:
deleterious

Very true, some hear who actually has studied American history!

armwood said:
Thomas Jefferson wrote is own version of the Bible. He had fews on religion more in line with Bill Maher than most people would suspect. I am sure most of you have never read the Jefferson bible.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

It is very interesting to separate facts from mythology.

The Jefferson bible is actually “extracted textually” from the gospels. Jefferson basically edits out the supernatural elements. It is a good read.

armwood said:
He had fews on religion more in line with Bill Maher than most people would suspect. I am sure most of you have never read the Jefferson bible.
/

armwood said:
There are some wonderful bibliographies of the founding fathers which have been published in the past ten years or so. I have read six or seven. The factually history is much more complex and interesting than the over simplified, rhetorical history, spun by latter day conservatives.

KING on patrol . Mr . Arms , as a fellow pretend smart person , one must clean up one ‘ s act . A bibliography is a listing of sources used in writing . You mean BIOGRAPHY . Instead of factually , you mean FACTUAL . Oversimplified is one word . The ” spun by latter day conservatives ” is your spin , not fact .

” He had fews on religion ” , VIEWS , of course . ” I am sure most of you have never read the Jefferson Bible ” . This is an offensive and contentious statement .

Mr. Arms , your punctuation is abominable . Please return to your 10th grade class and study harder this time . You ‘ re welcome .

SuperChuñdy said:
This is the problem with looking to the founding era as a guide to today’s problems: the time periods are too different. Would we use 18th century medical texts to cure any disease today?

But let’s assume that Madison was reincarnated (a sort of reverse “death panel”), he would probably be against the “welfare state” since he could be assumed to believe in “personal responsibility.” However, Madison would be equally dismayed by the concentration of economic power in several large comglomerates such as GE, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, etc. He’d be dismayed about the inability of the federal government to solve national problems because it’s been stymied by nefarious factions (i.e. special interest groups). But he’d be dismayed most by Senators that no longer work in good faith with one another. For Madison, the welfare state would be a symptom of the systemic problems with our modern form of his government.

Both the Founding Father would naturally be opposed to affirmative action. You know, because they owned human being. Jefferson, on the other hand would favor it because he had a bad case of “jungle fever” (also too owned people).

Look up the Whiskey Rebellion and tell me if the “Tea Baggers” would have approved of Hamilton’s economic policies and Washington reaction to the “popular uprising”.

Refreshing to see someone who actually is familiar with American history. People like Sarah Palin (especially her Alaskan secessionist husband) Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachman et al have much more in common philosophically with the leaders of “The Whiskey Rebellion” than the founding fathers who opposed the founding fathers taking up arms in the 1790s. George Washington sent troops into western Pennsylvania, the west of that era to quel the rebellion. These rebels opposed federal taxation, a strong central government. They sound more like Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle and Michelle Bachman than George Washington who they opposed.

On the other hand the rebellion participants did have some philosophical commonality with the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson in their dislike for s strong federal government and opposition to taxes. In fact when he became president in 1800, Thomas Jefferson repealed the whisky tax which had sparked the rebellion. However they were more like the Tea Partiers, in their ant-intellectualism and their suspicion and derision of science. This is exemplified by the presence birthers in the Tea Party and people who actually dispute the science of evolution and global warming, sonething Thomas Jefferson would never have done.

The Lantern of Truth said:
KING on patrol . Mr . Arms , as a fellow pretend smart person , one must clean up one ‘ s act . A bibliography is a listing of sources used in writing . You mean BIOGRAPHY . Instead of factually , you mean FACTUAL . Oversimplified is one word . The ” spun by latter day conservatives ” is your spin , not fact .

” He had fews on religion ” , VIEWS , of course . ” I am sure most of you have never read the Jefferson Bible ” . This is an offensive and contentious statement .

Mr. Arms , your punctuation is abominable . Please return to your 10th grade class and study harder this time . You ‘ re welcome .

I will gladly compare my degree, and standardized test scores as well as i.q with yours. I have always acknowledged on this blog my typing shortcomings. What about yours. How about discussing ideas. Oh, you have none.

Kird said:
The Jefferson bible is actually “extracted textually” from the gospels. Jefferson basically edits out the supernatural elements. It is a good read.

Definitely, modern day fundamentalists who claim the founding day fathers were all Christians cannot handle it. Over the past thirty years or so I have given copies of it to many people including ministers who really had no real understanding of the enlightenment,

armwood said:
I will gladly compare my degree, and standardized test scores as well as i.q with yours. I have always acknowledged on this blog my typing shortcomings. What about yours. How about discussing ideas. Oh, you have none.

KING teaching a fool . Arms , it’s very sad that someone your age brings up schools and TESTS from many , many years gone by . Your errors are not just typing errors . You have a lack of comprehension and knowledge that you display in each of your rantings . Your inferiority complex is one of the most severe I have seen . You are self centered , contentious and totally without people skills . Look into your own shortcomings before displaying them so foolishly in public . You are the type of person everyone knows , a blowhard who is humored by his acquaintances , but mocked behind his back . You know this to be the case . You possibly can change and I hope you do .

SuperChuñdy said:
Maher was making a good argument poorly; what he meant to say was that the Founding Fathers were intellectuals, which he conflates in his mind with liberalism. Both the modern Tea Party and the Republican party contain a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism or anti-elitism that the Founding Fathers would have disapproved of since they were educated, wealthy men.

You are sadly misinformed:

“Reading about the NYT poll on the makeup of the Tea Party, the most interesting data (beyond the anti-poor, anti-black sentiment) was that Tea Party members are wealthier and better educated than the general public.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/tea-party-demographics_b_540082.html

The Lantern of Truth said:
KING teaching a fool . Arms , it’s very sad that someone your age brings up schools and TESTS from many , many years gone by . Your errors are not just typing errors . You have a lack of comprehension and knowledge that you display in each of your rantings . Your inferiority complex is one of the most severe I have seen . You are self centered , contentious and totally without people skills . Look into your own shortcomings before displaying them so foolishly in public . You are the type of person everyone knows , a blowhard who is humored by his acquaintances , but mocked behind his back . You know this to be the case . You possibly can change and I hope you do .

That is why I have been paid for my opinions for thirty years and you have not.

armwood, I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims that I made anti-Hispanic and other racist comments in this thread:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

You either need to show me the racist anti-Hispanic comments, or apologize to me for making such an accusation.

Bill Maher has issues, I hope he is not a gun owner.

Judge Mental said:
You are sadly misinformed:

“Reading about the NYT poll on the makeup of the Tea Party, the most interesting data (beyond the anti-poor, anti-black sentiment) was that Tea Party members are wealthier and better educated than the general public.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/tea-party-demographics_b_540082.html

Actually you lined to the Huffington Post comments on the original times story which I remember from when it was published last August. The only discussion about the income of Tea Partiers was this:

“Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. But 55 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be out of a job in the next year. And more than two-thirds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes. Like most Americans, they think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs.”

“When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

The title of the article is a little misleading:

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

If you actually read the article there are no facts other than the quote above to substantiate the headline. The headline may be true but the writer did not document is assertion. a pretty poor piece of writing. There is no showing of the questions asked regarding income and education or the responses.

armwood said:
That is why I have been paid for my opinions for thirty years and you have not.

KING helping . Yes . That’s better ! Shorter , but still speculative and contententious . Take the chip off your shoulder and relax . Nobody here bites . Inject a little humor , if you can .
So , you’ve been paid for your opinion for 30 years ? Give a lot of refunds ?

Bill, you are the last POS who would know whom the founding fathers’ hated. Most likely, they would hate your paternalistic arse.

BTW, you where wrong about rhetoric causing the Tucson massacre.

Nancy Pelosi publicly stated yesterday that it was just “a tragic accident.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XgR6g9ZV0Q

You see Bill, once again in your your lib world, no one is responsible.

armwood said:
armwood says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:25 am armwood(Quote)

Try to learn the meaning of the words succinct , pithy, and concise.

armwood said:
That is why I have been paid for my opinions for thirty years and you have not.

LMAO!

Yeah, right.

armwood said:
Actually you lined to the Huffington Post comments on the original times story which I remember from when it was published last August. s.

This is an interesting, academic study of the Tea Party:

Tea Party Nationalism: A Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of Its National Factions

http://www.teapartynationalism.com/pdf/TeaPartyNationalism.pdf

The Lantern of Truth said:
Your errors are not just typing errors

Been telling him that for weeks now. As smart as he is, you would think he knows how to proofread. He’s been endoctrinated well, but not very educated.

Sean68 said:
Maher is like porn for the left. Equating a diverse group of men such as founding fathers with the contemporary left? It’s not quite that simple. Were Maher not a one-note charlie, he’d know that.

he didn’t..

All he said was that founding fathers are not like the teabaggers. that doesn’t mean that they have to belong to the other side..

notsofast said:
Try to learn the meaning of the words succinct , pithy, and concise.

Here is a humorous and fun filled present for you, seriously, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI

I don’t think America can stand Maher’s spew of hate 5 times a week. He’d be canceled in less time.

armwood said:
Actually you lined to the Huffington Post comments on the original times story which I remember from when it was published last August.

You remember from when it was published in August? That’s interesting, because the HuffPo article I linked was from April. But you’re correct that the author failed to include the facts, and instead provided the link to the NYT story.

At any rate, your post failed to disprove — or even address — the assertion that Tea Party members are better educated and wealthier than the population at large. I guess you’re disputing the facts reported by the Times and reiterated by the HuffPo.

Socialist said:
he didn’t..

All he said was that founding fathers are not like the teabaggers. that doesn’t mean that they have to belong to the other side..

Very True!

armwood said:
Definitely, modern day fundamentalists who claim the founding day fathers were all Christians cannot handle it

Who said they all were?

More were than were not and all your re-writing of history will not change that.

I purchased one of armpit’s opinions, but was refused a refund because I no longer had the receipt.
I just took it back to Wal-Mart and exchanged it for a hat.

armwood said:
Here is a humorous and fun filled present for you, seriously, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI

Son, that was made with you in mind- actually with you without a mind!

I’m not letting this go, armwood.

Others may have ignored that you glibbly smeared them in this manner, but I won’t.

armwood said:
This is an interesting, academic study of the Tea Party: Tea Party Nationalism: A Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of Its National Factions http://www.teapartynationalism.com/pdf/TeaPartyNationalism.pdf

a left wing hack site, come on armwood you can do better than that sir

cjd ohio 1 said:
a left wing hack site, come on armwood you can do better than that sir

cjd – no he can’t. He’s endoctrinated.

Judge Mental said:
You remember from when it was published in August? That’s interesting, because the HuffPo article I linked was from April. But you’re correct that the author failed to include the facts, and instead provided the link to the NYT story.

At any rate, your post failed to disprove — or even address — the assertion that Tea Party members are better educated and wealthier than the population at large. I guess you’re disputing the facts reported by the Times and reiterated by the HuffPo.

You are right, the story was published on April 14, 2010, I put the articles in to “Papers” in August. Papers is a wonderful program which is useful for collecting and organizing academic research as well as articles. You can search Google Scholar within it as well as some journal article search engines. If you are a Mac use I really recommend it. I no longer have pdf files of articles, in nested folders on my computer, like I used to. It searched pdf file text which is wonderful.

http://mekentosj.com/papers/

Here is an excellent review of Papers on MacWorld.

http://www.macworld.com/reviews/product/413240/review/papers_18.html

SmartAlec said:
He’s been endoctrinated well, but not very educated.

He has quite amazing.

He smeared me on this thread as having made racist and anti-Hispanic remarks without offering up a shred of proof!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

Loughner’s School Releases Video Of Him Calling The College “Genocide School” http://bit.ly/hDsOAz

Bill Maher is definitely right even though I think he often times allows his belligerent sarcasm to take away from valid points he makes. You right wing fanatical ideologues are so blinded by your hatred for President Obama that you have even extended that apathy to fellow caucasians

He even accused me of ignoring the fact that another “African-American poster” had “called me out” for making racist remarks, when the poster had been referring to an appellation made by a Hispanic NPR commentator!

cjd ohio 1 said:
a left wing hack site, come on armwood you can do better than that sir

did you actually read the article. I think that you will be surprised by what the article actually says. Dismissing a study by labeling it or characterizing it without any substantive criticism of any specifics in the study is intellectually dishonest. What specific findings or conclusions do you dispute? As an example the study finds that the Tea Party leadership made good faith attempts to rid itself of some of the racists elements within the party after the NAACP rightly criticized the Tea Part for not distancing itself from these elements. This is the truth. The Tea Party started featuring black Tea Party members in its public presentations. This is the truth. The Tea Party did in fact take affirmative steps to be more inclusive. I totally disagree with the philosophy of the Tea Party but I think these steps were right, no matter the motivation.

Read the paper. It is actually well documented and fairly written. Many people here seem to have little respect for academia or academic approaches to issues. That in fact is my biggest criticism of Tea Partiers.

armwood said:
Read the paper. It is actually well documented and fairly written. Many people here seem to have little respect for academia or academic approaches to issues. That in fact is my biggest criticism of Tea Partiers.

However, when I ask YOU to document proof of your inflammatory accusation that I made anti-Hispanic and racist comments, you ignore it….

mcf1757 said:
Loughner’s School Releases Video Of Him Calling The College “Genocide School” http://bit.ly/hDsOAz

This is some real “looney tunes”

.

armwood said:
Many people here seem to have little respect for academia or academic approaches to issues.

How’s this for an academic approach and a examination of the issues:

armwood: “1) There is no such thing as an objective standard. You should no better than that. We all have our biases.”

TfT said:
So, mediaite embraces and endorses the hate speech of the left – howsurprising NOT.

Too funny how Maher is “provacative” when it’s the other way, say a consersavtive makes a statement it’s “controversial”.

These days it’s more like “violent, vitriolic and inflammatory”.

minorityreport said:
Bill Maher is definitely right even though I think he often times allows his belligerent sarcasm to take away from valid points he makes. You right wing fanatical ideologues are so blinded by your hatred for President Obama that you have even extended that apathy to fellow caucasians

Would someone buy this genius a dictionary? armwood, maybe you could take him under your erudite wing and go through some flash cards with him or something.

“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

The Tucson memorial is barely over, but it is obvious that extremists like Bill Maher and Chris Matthews don’t give a crap about what their messiah-in-chief said. They will continue their hate-filled rants as long as it brings them the attention they so desperately seek.

armwood said:
did you actually read the article. I think that you will be surprised by what the article actually says. Dismissing a study by labeling it or characterizing it without any substantive criticism of any specifics in the study is intellectually dishonest. What specific findings or conclusions do you dispute? As an example the study finds that the Tea Party leadership made good faith attempts to rid itself of some of the racists elements within the party after the NAACP rightly criticized the Tea Part for not distancing itself from these elements. This is the truth. The Tea Party started featuring black Tea Party members in its public presentations. This is the truth. The Tea Party did in fact take affirmative steps to be more inclusive. I totally disagree with the philosophy of the Tea Party but I think these steps were right, no matter the motivation. Read the paper. It is actually well documented and fairly written. Many people here seem to have little respect for academia or academic approaches to issues. That in fact is my biggest criticism of Tea Partiers.

i did, it tries to paint a left view of the tea party, with a lot of assumptions that they start from………IREHR and NAACP are groups biased to the left, just as hertiage and others are biased to the right, i have no problem with that. But to think that they start from unbiased positions to start their studies is wrong

Pablo said:
These days it’s more like “violent, vitriolic and inflammatory”.

Oh, you haven’t lived till in the process of criticizing the remarks of ONE NPR commentator, you are then called “white supremacist”, “racist” and “anti-Hispanic”!

cjd ohio 1 said:
a left wing hack site, come on armwood you can do better than that sir

Here’s an interesting article from a conservative source written this past June:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/two-faces-tea-party

Cecelia said:
.

How’s this for an academic approach and a examination of the issues:

armwood: “1) There is no such thing as an objective standard. You should no better than that. We all have our biases.”

Did you ever take philosophy or a course on rhetoric, critical thinking or debate? All standards ar relative to here you stand are sit.

Philosophy of Science and Objectivity

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt22e.htm

SuperChuñdy said:
This is the problem with looking to the founding era as a guide to today’s problems: the time periods are too different. Would we use 18th century medical texts to cure any disease today? But let’s assume that Madison was reincarnated (a sort of reverse “death panel”), he would probably be against the “welfare state” since he could be assumed to believe in “personal responsibility.” However, Madison would be equally dismayed by the concentration of economic power in several large comglomerates such as GE, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, etc. He’d be dismayed about the inability of the federal government to solve national problems because it’s been stymied by nefarious factions (i.e. special interest groups). But he’d be dismayed most by Senators that no longer work in good faith with one another. For Madison, the welfare state would be a symptom of the systemic problems with our modern form of his government. Both the Founding Father would naturally be opposed to affirmative action. You know, because they owned human being. Jefferson, on the other hand would favor it because he had a bad case of “jungle fever” (also too owned people). Look up the Whiskey Rebellion and tell me if the “Tea Baggers” would have approved of Hamilton’s economic policies and Washington reaction to the “popular uprising”.

The Tea Party movement is seeking a peaceful redress of grievances while the Whiskey Rebellion was an armed and violent insurection. They are totally different. Why do you ask how the “Tea Baggers” “would have” done anything. They are here now so you don’t have to conjecture how the “would” have done anything.

I think you have to work on your confusion before you correct others.

armwood scatter sprays you with bullets like “racist”, “white supremacist” and “anti-Hispanic” as though they were spit balls!

Without a SHRED of provocation!

armwood said:
Did you ever take philosophy or a course on rhetoric, critical thinking or debate? All standards ar relative to here you stand are sit.

Philosophy of Science and Objectivity

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt22e.htm

Inherent in that summation is a timeless philosophical contradiction.

It’s contradictory to say that everything is relative, without that VERY STATEMENT being relative…

Which was my point– YOU MOST CERTAINLY can examine individual perceptions in the light of objective reality. AND YOU SHOULD!

If a mad man says that he perceives the moon to be made of blue cheese, it’s really NOT just a difference of subjective perception….

RichS said:
The Tea Party movement is seeking a peaceful redress of grievances while the Whiskey Rebellion was an armed and violent insurection. They are totally different. Why do you ask how the “Tea Baggers” “would have” done anything. They are here now so you don’t have to conjecture how the “would” have done anything.

I think you have to work on your confusion before you correct others.

Sharon Angle ” second amendment remedies”, Sarah Palin’s bulls eyes, Michelle Bachman’s “I want people armed and dangerous” over President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming “because we need to fight back.”

Kird said:
Here’s an interesting article from a conservative source written this past June: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/two-faces-tea-party

i read the article, its true that the tea party is unorganized, lacks a unified position on things, and a splintered movement, and has extremist to a small degree, but the other article that was presented try to say or imply a pure hate of obama or racist views as the primary call of the tea party

SuperChuñdy said:
Yup. Liberals and “Negros” need to get over the whole racism thing. Yeah you were enslaved as property,but that was like over 140 years ago! Yeah “colored people” were not allowed to use the same drinking fountains, but that was like 60 years ago! Yeah black people still face racism today, but at least you’re still not shackled. I mean come on! Amirite folks? The last refuge of the disgruntled white man: the reverse race card.

Slavery isn’t gone, you just have to look to Aftrica, Asia and South America to find it in abundance.

NOW armwood, back up your inflammatory and harmful smear that I made racist and anti-Hispanic comments on this thread:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

armwood said:
Sharon Angle ” second amendment remedies”, Sarah Palin’s bulls eyes, Michelle Bachman’s “I want people armed and dangerous” over President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming “because we need to fight back.”

What about Obama saying “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

Obama didn’t literally mean bring a gun and niether did Sarah Palin. Your argument is weak.

Cecelia said:
NOW armwood, back up your inflammatory and harmful smear that I made racist and anti-Hispanic comments on this thread:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

You can’t. You would be only too glad to do it at the ready, with a song in your heart, if you could.

However, you can’t. That’s why you ignore my insistence that you show proof of serious charges that you made against me.

I have NO respect for you now. You’ve shown yourself to be utterly unworthy of it.

SuperChuñdy said:
That’s the point. You state that liberal would blame an Obama loss in 2012 on racism, which some would. But to prematurely ejaculate such an argument is lame. The argument isn’t end racism and blacks will magically be better off; it’s stop deriding every policy intended to help minorities as “racists.” Yes affirmative action disadvantaged whites (and Asians) applying for college, government contracts, and loans, but they are in no way comparable to what blacks and others suffered from centuries in this country. The former (affirmative action) is intended to help people, the latter (slavery/racism) was at times a systemic effort by the government and society to subjugate racial minorities. The two are not equal. When North Carolina stops purposely integrating its schools because they think it’s “reverse engineering,” they hurt children (black and white) from receiving the best education possible. While the change is couched as a stand against “reverse-racism,” it has a disproportionate affect on poor black children. Of course not. But the Tea party uses a very warped version of history espoused by Beck and other that tell them the Founding Father would be on their side. In fact, they’d curse both sides. Yet I still see people in three-cornered hats and powdered wigs who are convinced that liberals are Benedict Arnolds, not just disagreeing.

So you think we should punish the children for the sins of the fathers?

Powerslave said:
Your argument is weak.

Well, his argument against inflammatory rhetoric is especially “weak” considering that it’s coming from someone who made inflammatory charges such a calling me anti-Hispanic, racist, and white supremacist without a shed of proof.

Powerslave said:
What about Obama saying “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

Obama didn’t literally mean bring a gun and niether did Sarah Palin. Your argument is weak.

Agree. Rahm Emanuel is also known for using “aggressive rhetoric” and he’s one of the most powerful Democrats in country.

Cecelia said:
You can’t. You would be only too glad to do it at the ready, with a song in your heart, if you could. However, you can’t. That’s why you ignore my insistence that you show proof of serious charges that you made against me. I have NO respect for you now. You’ve shown yourself to be utterly unworthy of it.

He did it to me, too. He personally attacked me and when I called him on it he said he did it because someone else attacked him. He then said something about him not being Michael Dukakis. Great logic.

BFD said:
01/07/2011 08:12 PMDemocrats still outnumber Republicans by a narrow margin, numbering 31 percent of the population to Republicans´ 29 percent. The results were compiled from 21 polls conducted over the course of 2010 and closely mirror the latest Gallup daily tracking poll.

Seems that the unaffiliated are ahead by 9 percent on the Dems and 11 percent on the Repubs with a large 40%.

armwood said:
Sharon Angle ” second amendment remedies”, Sarah Palin’s bulls eyes, Michelle Bachman’s “I want people armed and dangerous” over President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming “because we need to fight back.”

The full Bachmann quote:

“I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.”

Yes. Armed with facts. Armed with arguments. You lie, armwood. Your friends lie. You lie to each other. You lie to everyone else. Your worldview is a lie, and you’re dumb enough to believe it even when you’re telling the lie you know to be a lie. One of these days you’re going to rob yourself blind and leave yourself for dead.

Powerslave said:
He did it to me, too. He personally attacked me and when I called him on it he said he did it because someone else attacked him. He then said something about him not being Michael Dukakis. Great logic.

I can believe it now.

He threw fired incendiary charges at me like they were a list of stock tips that I should be grateful to receive and completely refuses to back up his own accusations.

Palin also not the first to use target imagery:

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

Pablo said:
You lie, armwood.

He certainly lied in his charges against me.

And I believe Sharon Angle’s just an idiot a couple notches removed from Alvin Greene.

armwood, perhaps it is your general practice to label opinions that differ with yours as being “racist”, without a shred of proof, but you picked the wrong lady to try that on in this case.

Sarah Palin toured the U.S. last fall on the Tea Party Express bus tour campaigning for their congressional candidates, many of whom won their elections.

Sarah Palin wrote about the Tea Party in her book, “America By Heart”:

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/sarah-palin-tea-party-movement

Maher has a point about the founding fathers, all of them with the exception of maybe one were the richest men of their time. Charles Augustus Beard’s book “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution” presents a compelling argument about how the founding fathers were only out for themselves and the elite.

Armwood, after you have poured over my remarks in that thread and found nothing that can be contrived as being racist, I will gladly accept your apology for having falsely impugned me.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

Nacho said:
Maher,is defiantly no saint. But you do have to acknowledge his program is on a “premium” pay cable channel and Limbaugh and Savage go out over our free public airwaves.

Yes, Cable TV is expensive and that channel programs mostly the same movies over-and-over again and series like the one about the Atlantic City “Boardwalk” during prohibition that glorify criminals.

The amount of hate and mis-information I read on this site is mind-boggling(I am sure you guys are mostly fox news kool aid drinkers). You guys never complained about the deficit until the black man was elected president. You guys never complained about the so-called socialized health care, until the black man was elected. I know most of you will be sick to your stomach watching that same black man address the nation at the state of the union address. You cant understand why the white people that support him do, and you forget that his mum was white (you guys probably call her a ni**er lover). If you think that you have it bad now under the bi-racial presidency of Barack Obama, just wait till yàll became a minority in 2040.I dont understand the level of hate in America. America is a great country, it is intolerant fools from the right that gives it a bad name. You might argue that you just hate his policies and ideology, but we all know you feel that the white house has been taken over by the WU-TANG Clan

Cecelia said:
No, you’re not accurately portraying liberal “logic”. In their minds, unlike what Limbaugh or Savage do, it is not deleterious to our body politic to viciously impugn any conservative…because…..in their case….it’s true….

Yes, Limbaugh exploits the daily events his commentaries feature to keep his audience satisified as he created the modern conservative talk radio bombastic format.

Sarah Palin writes about her brand of Conservatisim in her book, “America By Heart”:

http://www.flixya.com/blog/2405582/Sarah-Palin-Commonsense

minorityreport said:
ut we all know you feel that the white house has been taken over by the WU-TANG Clan

“taken over” by the what?…

redwriteblue said:
Yes, Limbaugh exploits the daily events his commentaries feature to keep his audience satisified as he created the modern conservative talk radio bombastic format.

I think that’s called opinion radio.

I really couldn’t care less what a God-loathing, America hating, Socialist thinks

If he did like me, I would take it as a character flaw on my end.

Cecelia said:
I think that’s called opinion radio.

LOL, Coming from the lady in the bubble that does not know what Wu-Tang clan is!!! I bet you know the Nsync and beach boys….

Bill Maher, is an American Original, just Brilliant commentary. In Little over Four Minutes he en-capsules what the Moronic Teabaggers (REPUBLICANS) are really about. Of course the Teabaggers will shrew their hatred for him but that just seem to make him stronger. I ask you Clowns that seem to dislike Mr. Maher, give me one thing that he said in the commentary that wasn’t a FACT!!!!!!! I know you dumb SCREWS hate FACTS, so I’ll make it easy for you JUST GIVE ME ONE!!!!!!!

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I really couldn’t care less what a God-loathing, America hating, Socialist thinks

If he did like me, I would take it as a character flaw on my end.

Can you actually examine what he says and argue against that rather than post ad hominems? I’ve never heard Maher say he hated America, he’s said the people are stupid, but never that he hates them. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say anything socialist. You don’t have to believe him about the founding fathers, but if you read Charles Beard’s book you’ll see that he actually has a point.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Maher has a point about the founding fathers, all of them with the exception of maybe one were the richest men of their time. Charles Augustus Beard’s book “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution” presents a compelling argument about how the founding fathers were only out for themselves and the elite.

*richest men in America

Clifford, I think you’d better go back and read Der Leaders speech on civility again.

Cecelia said:

Just hut up already.

Geeze Louise

minorityreport said:
You guys never complained about the so-called socialized health care

As someone who personally saw government bureaucracy in action after Katrina, I would have preferred that the fed fix itself before attempting to fix anything else.

He expels a rant filled with blanket pejoratives and then calls others “hateful”….

Nacho said:
Just hut up already.

Geeze Louise

Nope.

RichS said:
Slavery isn’t gone, you just have to look to Aftrica, Asia and South America to find it in abundance.

Slavery exists in the United States in black market sweat shops in L.A. and NYC as well as in some massage parlors. It is underground but it does exist illegally. By the way, racism and discrimination are still alive today though things are a lot better than when I was young when Jim Crow laws and de facto segregation was still openly practiced. Now it is much more subtle and less pervasive.

Modern-Day Slavery in America
Yes, There Are Slaves in the United States, and the Problem Is Getting Worse
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2981327

minorityreport said:
LOL, Coming from the lady in the bubble that does not know what Wu-Tang clan is!!! I bet you know the Nsync and beach boys….

I’ve heard of the Beach Boys. Never liked their stuff.

armwood said:
Now it is much more subtle and less pervasive.

Yes, it’s so subtle that you can’t even prove it against me after having made the charge.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Maher has a point about the founding fathers, all of them with the exception of maybe one were the richest men of their time. Charles Augustus Beard’s book “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution” presents a compelling argument about how the founding fathers were only out for themselves and the elite.

This should be obvious to anyone who has studies the period of time, read the Federalist Papers and read the original Constitution. Unfortunately to many Americans are not willing to put in the time and effort to actually rad these documents.

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

James Madison

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

What a nincompoop.

Nacho said:
What a nincompoop.

Actually, James Madison was quite brilliant…

Cecelia said:
I’ve heard of the Beach Boys. Never liked their stuff.

You should give “Pet Sounds” a listen.

armwood said:
Slavery exists in the United States in black market sweat shops in L.A. and NYC as well as in some massage parlors. It is underground but it does exist illegally. By the way, racism and discrimination are still alive today though things are a lot better than when I was young when Jim Crow laws and de facto segregation was still openly practiced. Now it is much more subtle and less pervasive.

Modern-Day Slavery in America
Yes, There Are Slaves in the United States, and the Problem Is Getting Worse
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2981327

I am African and I remember when I was young, we would see a white person on the streets and we would all run to greet them, extend our hands for friendship, and try to help them in whatever way possible. that is still the case today in every black country in Africa. So when I came to North America, I thought that “love“ would be reciprocated, Damn was I mistaken.

Cecelia said:
Is anyone surprised that this new reverence for modulated political rhetoric seems to only go one way….

Yeah, we don’t want that modulation! It is bullshit. Rush says keep it up, he’s right!!! I say some leftist asshole tries to sit on our side of the isle he gets the shit kicked outa him! They lost! We won!

Kird said:
You should give “Pet Sounds” a listen.

Perhaps. Thanks for the suggestion.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I really couldn’t care less what a God-loathing, America hating, Socialist thinks If he did like me, I would take it as a character flaw on my end.

Your damnd right!!!! Libs are all socialists, and deserve our hatred. They ALL have character flaws. Great comment.

armwood said:
Slavery exists in the United States in black market sweat shops in L.A. and NYC as well as in some massage parlors.

Wow. Slavery exists in America two largest Democrat bastions? Imagine that.

minorityreport said:
I am African and I remember when I was young, we would see a white person on the streets and we would all run to greet them, extend our hands for friendship, and try to help them in whatever way possible. that is still the case today in every black country in Africa. So when I came to North America, I thought that “love“ would be reciprocated, Damn was I mistaken.

that is still the case today in every black country in africa, are you for real, do you have that much hate that you have to lie, sorry sir you are wrong on that statement

The ONLY hate comes from the left. People like Maher are lowest of the low.

Nothing from the Tea Party has caused anyone a problem except the big spending democrats. If the government stops new spending cuts useless programs it is the END of the democrats. That is why they are out of control and it will continue for the next two years. It is going to get worse.

Duke said:
Yeah, we don’t want that modulation! It is bullshit. Rush says keep it up, he’s right!!! I say some leftist asshole tries to sit on our side of the isle he gets the shit kicked outa him! They lost! We won!

It makes far more sense to parody the opinions of those who supported the position that speech inflames to violence in the first place.

armwood said:
This is an interesting, academic study of the Tea Party: Tea Party Nationalism: A Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of Its National Factions http://www.teapartynationalism.com/pdf/TeaPartyNationalism.pdf

An academic study with a left leaning, almost to the point of collapsing introduction and a foreword by the CEO of a racist organization, the NAACP. No axe to grind here, eh Armie?

Look at the authors of the “study.” Can’t help but think their minds were made up before they started and they just looked for confirmation. The go so far as to talk about “anti-immigrant” rallies that the Tea Party held. I know of no “anti-immigrant” rallies. I do know of anti-illegal immigrant rallies because illegal immigration is a huge problem in this country.

Oh, and about people paying you for your opinion, are they paying for your wisdom or for your ability to regurgitate others opinions? You do a very poor job of arguing your case here.

Duke said:
Your damnd right!!!! Libs are all socialists, and deserve our hatred. They ALL have character flaws. Great comment.

Not really.. But generally strawman sockpuppets always do.

gordonbloyershow said:
The ONLY hate comes from the left. People like Maher are lowest of the low. Nothing from the Tea Party has caused anyone a problem except the big spending democrats. If the government stops new spending cuts useless programs it is the END of the democrats. That is why they are out of control and it will continue for the next two years. It is going to get worse.

hate comes from both sides

gordonbloyershow said:
The ONLY hate comes from the left. People like Maher are lowest of the low.

Nothing from the Tea Party has caused anyone a problem except the big spending democrats. If the government stops new spending cuts useless programs it is the END of the democrats. That is why they are out of control and it will continue for the next two years. It is going to get worse.

Maher is the left-wing version of Limbaugh, you are a clone of Limbaugh. It’s only natural that you would feel such anger on this thread.

cjd ohio 1 said:
hate comes from both sides

However, if you’re lauding the president’s recent memorial speech as a moral tour de force don’t act as though it had the personal impact of a gnat kiss with your next breath.

gordonbloyershow said:
The ONLY hate comes from the left. People like Maher are lowest of the low. Nothing from the Tea Party has caused anyone a problem except the big spending democrats. If the government stops new spending cuts useless programs it is the END of the democrats. That is why they are out of control and it will continue for the next two years. It is going to get worse.

You are, as usual, absolutely right, my friend. Cut spending, but the libs wont do that. They play to their base, the hate leaning cities.

Cecelia said:
However, if you’re lauding the president’s recent memorial speech as a moral tour de force don’t act as though it had the personal impact of a gnat kiss with your next breath.

just trying to be fair and honest

armwood said:
Sharon Angle ” second amendment remedies”, Sarah Palin’s bulls eyes, Michelle Bachman’s “I want people armed and dangerous” over President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming “because we need to fight back.”

Its boring to repeatively list the same sorts of actions done by the Dems and libs, so I won’t. If Armie were fair he would realize them for himself. But I will ask you how many armed attacks on government officials the Tea Party has made. You realize that this was the cause of President Washington raising a militia and having them confront the Whiskey Rebels? Its intellectually dishonest of you to say the two are equivalent, but then that just means you are being consistent.

Oh, and people pay me for my opinion also, but, since I have a US Patent with me as the only inventor, I can say that my opinion is not always like yours, based on regurgitation.

cjd ohio 1 said:
just trying to be fair and honest

I know. I appreciate it.

hate comes from both sides

I submit to you cjd ohio, that the VAST majority comes from the left. It was funny, Sean Hannity had a whole hour yesterday devoted to just liberal callers and when they accused him of peddling hate and he’d ask for an example, the only thing they had was he criticized the pres for the economy. See to alot of people on the left, if seems, just disagreeing with them is hateful.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
hate comes from both sides I submit to you cjd ohio, that the VAST majority comes from the left. It was funny, Sean Hannity had a whole hour yesterday devoted to just liberal callers and when they accused him of peddling hate and he’d ask for an example, the only thing they had was he criticized the pres for the economy. See to alot of people on the left, if seems, just disagreeing with them is hateful.

Your absolutely right, 2012! I have never seen so much hatred from those lefty bastards, expecially on this blog. I could name the haters, but that just gives the bastards more publicity.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
hate comes from both sides

I submit to you cjd ohio, that the VAST majority comes from the left. It was funny, Sean Hannity had a whole hour yesterday devoted to just liberal callers and when they accused him of peddling hate and he’d ask for an example, the only thing they had was he criticized the pres for the economy. See to alot of people on the left, if seems, just disagreeing with them is hateful.

There is no vast majority coming from the left. That’s your opinion (which you are entitled to). Just becase that is the only side which recieves the publicity and national attention does not mean it is the one where the vast majority comes from. If you look on this site you can see that. Equal hatred from left and right, just look at notsofast and King. Ann Coulter and Ed Shultz. Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher.

well , i can see things from both sides, some are just hateful and others simply imply hate, i am not going to say which side is worse, that is a judgement call each person has to make for themselves

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Equal hatred from left and right, j

Agreed.

Has anyone taken on and disputed the substance of Maher’s remarks or has it mostly been ad homenin?

cjd ohio 1 said:
well , i can see things from both sides, some are just hateful and others simply imply hate, i am not going to say which side is worse, that is a judgement call each person has to make for themselves

Well, again…if you buy into the notion that it was speech that affected the Arizona shooter, and you feel that the political rhetoric in this country is fomenting violence, then ACT as though you truly believe that…

cjd ohio 1 said:
well , i can see things from both sides, some are just hateful and others simply imply hate, i am not going to say which side is worse, that is a judgement call each person has to make for themselves

She’s no angel, none of them are, but I’m sure Hilliary Clinton could share a good bit in private conversation about being on the receiving end of hate-from both sides.

Cecelia said:
Well, again…if you buy into the notion that it was speech that affected the Arizona shooter, and you feel that the political rhetoric in this country is fomenting violence, then ACT as though you truly believe that…

no i dont think it had anything to do with the shooting, i was just addressing the statement made above

Davo said:
He gets-off by gaining attention the only way a no-talent jerk can……………by being as outrageous as he can.

I believe you, since you have much more experience with self-aggrandizing attention-seekers than I do. By the way, how’s the monument to your greatness coming along? ;-)

AngelPeters said:
Has anyone taken on and disputed the substance of Maher’s remarks or has it mostly been ad homenin?

Well, we’ve not gotten any comments from Jefferson or Franklin as to their feelings about the TeaParty Movement (or Mahler’s characterization of it as being chockful of religious fundamentalists), but we’ve got the Ghost Whisperer on the job.

Maher, rather. I was listening to my friend Mahler the other day.

He’s so-so on the Tea Party Movement.

Cecelia said:
Maher, rather. I was listening to my friend Mahler the other day. He’s so-so on the Tea Party Movement.

Who is Mahler?

cjd ohio 1 said:
no i dont think it had anything to do with the shooting, i was just addressing the statement made above

Oh, sorry, I was just saying that in general and to no one in particular.

Cecelia said:
Well, we’ve not gotten any comments from Jefferson or Franklin as to their feelings about the TeaParty Movement (or Mahler’s characterization of it as being chockful of religious fundamentalists), but we’ve got the Ghost Whisperer on the job.

We can however speculate based on the positions of the founding fathers. Do I think they would have hated the tea party? Probably not. Do I think they would have agreed with them economically? To varying degrees. One thing Maher is spot on about though is that they are not the type of people that most tea partiers would sit down and have a beer with because they would equate to those highly educated elitists.

Duke said:
Who is Mahler?

He was a composer of some pretty nice ditties.

Cecelia said:
Oh, sorry, I was just saying that in general and to no one in particular.

its cool

He wasn’t the Wu-Tang Clan or the Beach Boys, he’s fairly good.

Cecelia said:
He was a composer of some pretty nice ditties.

* snicker *

Cecelia said:
He was a composer of some pretty nice ditties.

Sorry, i took you literally, and not that you were listening to a CD.

Unreasonable lib says:

There is no vast majority coming from the left.

Reasonable Conservative says:

BULLCRAP!!!

gordonbloyershow said:
The ONLY hate comes from the left. People like Maher are lowest of the low.

Gordon, we could fill a pictureless coffee table book with the hate-filled comments from you just on these boards. Who the hell do you think you’re kidding? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cecelia said:
He wasn’t the Wu-Tang Clan or the Beach Boys, he’s fairly good.

Oi oi oi Wu-Tang also provides financial assistance:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=11887&title=wu-tang-financial

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Unreasonable lib says:

There is no vast majority coming from the left.

Reasonable Conservative says:

BULLCRAP!!!

You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; both sides are equally guilty, no side is more upstanding than the other.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
We can however speculate based on the positions of the founding fathers. Do I think they would have hated the tea party? Probably not. Do I think they would have agreed with them economically? To varying degrees. One thing Maher is spot on about though is that they are not the type of people that most tea partiers would sit down and have a beer with because they would equate to those highly educated elitists.

I’m just being facetious. I don’t have any trouble with people surmising how the Founders might feel.

Actually, there was a poll done of the Tea Party folks that showed them to be mostly middle-class and mostly college educated.

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics#document/p38

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Maher has a point about the founding fathers, all of them with the exception of maybe one were the richest men of their time. Charles Augustus Beard’s book “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution” presents a compelling argument about how the founding fathers were only out for themselves and the elite.

Of course Charles Augustus Beard felt that history should be used as a tool for social change and he firmly believed in a centrally planned economy. Don’t you think this book is a bit skewed in its view point?

Cecelia said:
He was a composer of some pretty nice ditties.

Rick Mahler also pitched for the Atlanta Braves in the eighties when not working on his tunes .

Word is out that Armwood is a racist . Allegedly .

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; both sides are equally guilty, no side is more upstanding than the other.

I think that one of the dangers of engaging in arguments such as who is the worst….it generally leads to your making the other guy look right…

UNreasonable libs says:

You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; both sides are equally guilty, no side is more upstanding than the other.

Reasonable Conservative says:

You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; the left is MUCH worse.

RichS said:
Of course Charles Augustus Beard felt that history should be used as a tool for social change and he firmly believed in a centrally planned economy. Don’t you think this book is a bit skewed in its view point?

No. As a matter of fact its probably one of the most non biased books on politics I’ve ever read. He doesn’t go into it using his own views and examines things from a primarily economic standpoint. He lines up the receipts and assets of the founding fathers. He doesn’t address the issue seeing them as nobles but rather everyday men. It’s a good read if you ever get the chance.

From the Correction department -
Before the Spelling Police write me a ticket, I admit to spelling indoctrinated twice on this thread starting incorrectly with an “e”.
I stand corrected.
Wonder why “The Smartest Man In The World” (armpit) didn’t catch it.

This dolt is living proof that sh*t can have a baby

Cecelia said:
I think that one of the dangers of engaging in arguments such as who is the worst….it generally leads to your making the other guy look right…

Most of the time it does. However, if the other side refuses to even be an adultI think it ends up making them look foolish.

Big Eddie said:
Word is out that Armwood is a racist . Allegedly .

Well, if you say, I think you should be able to prove it.

Armwood accused me of making white supremacist, racist, and anti-Hispanic comments and refuses to offer a SHRED of proof for those inflammatory actions.

Here’s the thread:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

You’ve seen his long posts. If he could prove his charges, he would be filling this board with it, rather than ignoring my insistence that he prove it.

armwood said:
Slavery exists in the United States in black market sweat shops in L.A. and NYC as well as in some massage parlors. It is underground but it does exist illegally. By the way, racism and discrimination are still alive today though things are a lot better than when I was young when Jim Crow laws and de facto segregation was still openly practiced. Now it is much more subtle and less pervasive. Modern-Day Slavery in AmericaYes, There Are Slaves in the United States, and the Problem Is Getting Worsehttp://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2981327

Yep, another example of the problems associated with illegal immigrants. Why did you not comment about the slavery problems in the rest of the world?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
UNreasonable libs says:

You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; both sides are equally guilty, no side is more upstanding than the other.

Reasonable Conservative says:

You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; the left is MUCH worse.

Can’t we be adults about this, Michele? As I said you’re entitled to your opinion. But for every instance of left-wing hatred you find an example of right-wing hatred could be found. It would stand to reason that the larger sector of society would have more hatred, but I’m not even going to get into that.

I’d say Maher’s ignorance is stunning; but I doubt it is ignorance over malice.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.”

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; both sides are equally guilty, no side is more upstanding than the other.

Depends on the venue. In the blogosphere, I agree completely. But on the airwaves, the right wing has that market cornered. Ed Schultz is about the closest you’ll get to the level of bombast in right wing media. Keith is about half to two-thirds Ed’s level, Larry a notch below that, and Rachel is liberal, but not bombastic. That one channel represents the most hyperbolic left wing broadcasting gets. Though the right consistently accuses the networks of liberal bias, they never accuse them of heated rhetoric (because the bias is hard enough to sell, since it isn’t true). And NPR and PBS are more likely to put people to sleep than rile them up. So, no, I don’t buy into the “equally bad” explanation on the airwaves, because it’s a false equivalency. Right wing radio and Fox News dominate the political discussion as everyone in the press plays follow-the-leader and goes after the highest ratings with whatever the right wing outrage-of-the-day happens to be. And make no mistake, there WILL be an outrage… every day. Rush couldn’t even play fair the day after Obama’s speech in Tucson. That sets the tone every day and we’re all forced to debate whatever Rush and company have decided is most likely to make liberals seem like Satan’s spawn and conservatives look like Jesus’ disciples, every day. Every single day. And saying “both sides are just as bad” is letting the opportunistic extremists who earn more profit the more heated the rhetoric gets off the hook. MSNBC may chase ratings in a similar way, but NBC Nightly News doesn’t. And conflating everyone in the same “media” category with Rush is like putting the U.S. Military and a terrorist in the same category – just because the military CAN fight back, doesn’t mean they started it. Rush starts it… pretty much every day.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Can’t we be adults about this, Michele? As I said you’re entitled to your opinion. But for every instance of left-wing hatred you find an example of right-wing hatred could be found. It would stand to reason that the larger sector of society would have more hatred, but I’m not even going to get into that.

Whats with this Michelle stuff?

Duke said:
Whats with this Michelle stuff?

2012=MicheleF
Got banned and came back under a new name.

Paul Westlake said:
Rush starts it… pretty much every day.

Actually, Paul, it’s a heck of a lot easier to believe that media members are culturally predisposed towards limousine liberalism, than it is to believe that Rush Limbaugh sets the overall media agenda for political discussion.

Paul Westlake said:
The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You’re entitled to your opinion,, but not your own reality. Face it; both sides are equally guilty, no side is more upstanding than the other.

Depends on the venue. In the blogosphere, I agree completely. But on the airwaves, the right wing has that market cornered. Ed Schultz is about the closest you’ll get to the level of bombast in right wing media. Keith is about half to two-thirds Ed’s level, Larry a notch below that, and Rachel is liberal, but not bombastic. That one channel represents the most hyperbolic left wing broadcasting gets. Though the right consistently accuses the networks of liberal bias, they never accuse them of heated rhetoric (because the bias is hard enough to sell, since it isn’t true). And NPR and PBS are more likely to put people to sleep than rile them up. So, no, I don’t buy into the “equally bad” explanation on the airwaves, because it’s a false equivalency. Right wing radio and Fox News dominate the political discussion as everyone in the press plays follow-the-leader and goes after the highest ratings with whatever the right wing outrage-of-the-day happens to be. And make no mistake, there WILL be an outrage… every day. Rush couldn’t even play fair the day after Obama’s speech in Tucson. That sets the tone every day and we’re all forced to debate whatever Rush and company have decided is most likely to make liberals seem like Satan’s spawn and conservatives look like Jesus’ disciples, every day. Every single day. And saying “both sides are just as bad” is letting the opportunistic extremists who earn more profit the more heated the rhetoric gets off the hook. MSNBC may chase ratings in a similar way, but NBC Nightly News doesn’t. And conflating everyone in the same “media” category with Rush is like putting the U.S. Military and a terrorist in the same category – just because the military CAN fight back, doesn’t mean they started it. Rush starts it… pretty much every day.

That was 2012′s quote, not Reasonable’s. Mediaite webmaster glitch.

Cecelia said:
Actually, Paul, it’s a heck of a lot easier to believe that media members are culturally predisposed towards limousine liberalism, than it is to believe that Rush Limbaugh sets the overall media agenda for political discussion.

It’s also easier to believe that lightning travels from cloud to ground, but it doesn’t. ;-)

During the Gulf oil spill, Maher said Obama should act like a ‘real’ black man and carry a gun in his pants. This makes Maher qualified to comment on what racism really is.

Paul Westlake said:
It’s also easier to believe that lightning travels from cloud to ground, but it doesn’t. ;-)

It’s also easy to prove that it doesn’t.

That’s not quite the case with an argument that sets Rush Limbaugh up as the arbiter of national discourse.

Of course, he’d be glad to hear it.

RichS said:
An academic study with a left leaning, almost to the point of collapsing introduction and a foreword by the CEO of a racist organization, the NAACP. No axe to grind here, eh Armie?

Look at the authors of the “study.” Can’t help but think their minds were made up before they started and they just looked for confirmation. The go so far as to talk about “anti-immigrant” rallies that the Tea Party held. I know of no “anti-immigrant” rallies. I do know of anti-illegal immigrant rallies because illegal immigration is a huge problem in this country.

Oh, and about people paying you for your opinion, are they paying for your wisdom or for your ability to regurgitate others opinions? You do a very poor job of arguing your case here.

The NAACP a racist organization. You must be a member of the KKK. The NAACP has done more to advance human rights than any non governmental organization in American, if not world history. You should be ashamed of yourself for making a statement like that. Go take a college American history course or better a constitutional law class and learn some American history. Your defamatory comments are pathetic, truly pathetic and un-American.

http://www.africanaonline.com/2010/08/naacp-a-historic-review/

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
beer

Your last sentence does not make sense.

Cecelia said:
It’s also easy to prove that it doesn’t.

That’s not quite the case with an argument that sets Rush Limbaugh up as the arbiter of national discourse.

Of course, he’d be glad to hear it.

Lots of things are easy to prove but are ignored anyway – evolution, for example. Rush, Glenn and the rest of the right wing media set the tone because they make the most outrageous accusations every day. Nobody in mainstream media made a daily practice of calling Bush a fascist. Some liberals did, for sure. But not on the airwaves, and certainly not with regularity that the right wing assails Obama and liberals with the same terminology, and much, much worse. Outrageous charges can’t be left to stand without a response, so the media has to play catch-up, getting sound bites and otherwise “covering” a “story” that was invented wholly in the minds of right wing propagandists. So, actually, it’s pretty easy to see, and prove. And there are many books out there on the subject that do just that.

SuperChuñdy said:
Both the modern Tea Party and the Republican party contain a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism or anti-elitism that the Founding Fathers would have disapproved of since they were educated, wealthy men.

It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense. ~Robert G. Ingersoll

But, your brush seems rather broad in it’s strokes as well. Note the word…Diversity. Also the part that says….”some held”.

“The educational background of the Founding Fathers was diverse. Some, like Franklin, were largely self-taught and had received scant formal training. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the individuals had at tended or graduated from college in the British North American colonies or abroad. Some men held advanced and honorary degrees. For the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group.”

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

Ben Franklin reminds me of Glenn Beck. Self taught. Common sense brilliance. Plus, didn’t Adams and Washington go back to Farming? Very “intellectual” according to some……

Cecelia said:

That’s not quite the case with an argument that sets Rush Limbaugh up as the arbiter of national discourse.

Yea, that’s a bit off the reservation . . .

Mr B said:
Ben Franklin reminds me of Glenn Beck.

Polar opposites. Franklin was an inventor and scientist who valued truth in the pursuit of knowledge. Beck wouldn’t know the truth if it crawled up his ass and detonated. Franklin is credited with many inventions, but as a musician, my favorite has always been the Armonica…

- http://www.glassarmonica.com/

Beck might invent a novel way to pluck navel lint, but he won’t ever come close to Franklin. ;-)

I don’t consider

Paul Westlake said:
Lots of things are easy to prove but are ignored anyway – evolution, for example. Rush, Glenn and the rest of the right wing media set the tone because they make the most outrageous accusations every day. Nobody in mainstream media made a daily practice of calling Bush a fascist. Some liberals did, for sure. But not on the airwaves, and certainly not with regularity that the right wing assails Obama and liberals with the same terminology, and much, much worse. Outrageous charges can’t be left to stand without a response, so the media has to play catch-up, getting sound bites and otherwise “covering” a “story” that was invented wholly in the minds of right wing propagandists. So, actually, it’s pretty easy to see, and prove. And there are many books out there on the subject that do just that.

I don’t consider Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to be mainstream media members.

And Beck is a relatively new presence in the sense of his black board writing presence.

What you do have in the mainstream media is people Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric putting forth memes that are generally sympathetic to the left.

You have a great example in the way the mainstream media came together to focus enormous attention upon Sara Palin after what was a crime that should been about the shooter, and how that shooter had been handled by Arizona officials who had a history with him.

I don’t think liberals need a Rush Limbaugh they have the anchors and the reporters of note who do it for them via the networks and their presence on MSNBC (I’m not talking about the prime time opinion anchors)

Maher didn’t say what size of gun Obama should be carrying. A S&W Model 29, like Dirty Harry used, carried strategically in front of the pants, would be very impressive.

How can anyone listen to anything Maher says. He’s nothing but a phony. Its obvious that what he says is infuenced by fame and money. If anyone doesn’t know, Maher USED TO BE A LIBERTARIAN who believed in free speech, individual responsibility and limited government. This was when he had a Comedy Central program called Politically Incorrect. After he moved to HBO (via ABC) his political “ideas” INSTANTLY did a 180 change. He NOW wants government to dicate our healthcare and what we can drive. There’s no doubt that he’s now a leftwinger. What changed? Money. Maher got a huge contract at HBO, but the stipulation was that he change his beliefs…which he did. He sold out his own beliefs for cash. BILL MAHER = SELLOUT

SmartAlec said:
I demand that Congress hold hearings and pass a bill that addresses the increasing Hate-ism in this country. The Leftys would even hate that.

Neither the Rightys nor the Leftys would have anything to talk about if something like that were passed. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Tom Brokaw was just on MSNBC the other day, talking about how he would be afraid to go into a bar in Arizona because of their concealed weapon laws.

When it comes to gun control, abortion, climate change, etc., though you might not get the Norm Chomsky take on things in the MSM, you certainly are going to get the liberal take. You certainly are going to see David Gregory on Meet the Press, question the Republican from the left on these matters, and question the Democrat as why there isn’t more of agenda to get liberal-leaning legislation accomplished on these matters.

Cecelia said:
What you do have in the mainstream media is people Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric putting forth memes that are generally sympathetic to the left.

Like what? This accusation has been thrown around since Bernie Goldberg’s book, Bias. The problem is, Goldberg didn’t prove it in his book (I read it when it came out). And nobody has adequately proven that the mainstream media has a liberal bias since his book, which didn’t prove it in the first place. In fact, Bernie destroyed whatever journalistic credibility he had with that book, as it was riddled with sloppy research, unfounded accusations, and more than a few outright lies. The right wing soaked it up and took it as gospel – the first codification of their pet meme – but it was wrong and it has been wrong all along. The obvious example of the “liberal” reporter has always been overshadowed by the power of the purse wielded by the reporter’s boss – the corporate conservatives who own the media empires and establish ALL the rules they operate under. If anything, conservative bias of omission is much more pervasive and dangerous than liberal bias in reporting. Until conservatives are willing to accept the fact that the media outlets they love to hate are actually owned and run by their corporate conservative heroes, our debates will keep devolving to this non-issue that has never been true and will not become true no matter how many times conservatives say it.

NAACP, racist no, but it has become a liberal organization, not the civil rights organization that it was

As USUAL, Bill is WRONG!

Since HE brought up Ben Franklin, let’s examine ONE of his many quotes:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
-Benjamin Franklin, November 1766

This HARDLY sounds like ANY Liberals’ position (redistribution of wealth) – and sounds AMAZINGLY like the Republican (and Tea Party) position (help the poor provide for themselves).

Sorry, but I don’t see how THIS (or many of the beliefs of our Founding Fathers) would make Tea Party people HATE them!

David Gregory is a terrible example. All the lefties I know think he’s in the tank for conservatives. And whenever I watch him, I’m almost convinced he’s a Republican. And none of those “memes” you think the mainstream media pushes (Noam Chomsky? How about the public option! Just once can we have that debate!?), approach the level of bombast from right wing media. You can falsely accuse Couric and Williams of liberal bias and might stick, but you can’t equate their copy with the vitriol dripping out of right wing media. So when it comes to the “tone” and “level” of the national dialogue, it rests firmly on the shoulders of right wing media.

Maher is, of course, quite correct. He possesses proper insight into such rabid, repressive podents. Wasted souls – in dire need of a cause & a crutch. They but suck blood from the Great Hound of Life. Nobodies who will never be…anybodies.

Mark Ward said:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
-Benjamin Franklin, November 1766

And what “free-market economies” did Franklin study when he arrived at that conclusion?

cjd ohio 1 said:
NAACP, racist no, but it has become a liberal organization, not the civil rights organization that it was

Um, civil rights ARE liberal. ;-)

Thank you for saying what so many of us have been thinking, Mr. Maher!

Nicely done Bill! The baggers and their apologists won’t see the contradiction of their devotion to the Founding Fathers and their contempt for everything they stood for!

Paul Westlake said:
Until conservatives are willing to accept the fact that the media outlets they love to hate are actually owned and run by their corporate conservative heroes, our debates will keep devolving to this non-issue that has never been true and will not become true no matter how many times conservatives say it.

Well, again, just as in setting Rush LImbaugh up as the Grand Poobah of National Discourse, it seems easier for you to believe that journalists within the mainstream media are all selling-out their principles to corporate robber-barons who run them like puppets, than it is to embrace the fact that television mainstream media personalities are largely compromised of a certain demographic. That demographic is largely liberal.

I don’t think most media members are leftwing Manchurian Candidates in disguise, but I do think that they are influenced by their backgrounds.

Speaking of Bernie Goldberg, I think he gave the perfect example of this when he told the story of Pauline Kael’s surprise over Nixon’s election because she knew no one who voted for him, when over 70% of the country HAD voted on him.

minorityreport said:
I am African and I remember when I was young, we would see a white person on the streets and we would all run to greet them, extend our hands for friendship, and try to help them in whatever way possible. that is still the case today in every black country in Africa. So when I came to North America, I thought that “love“ would be reciprocated, Damn was I mistaken.

I hope you realize that most white American’s are not as racist as many of the ones that congregate here. This is a group of frustrated, poorly educated, insecure people. Read the quality of their posts. They can barely write. I can’t type but they cannot formulate ideas.

Most of them did not attend top tier schools, do not have graduate degrees and have never achieved any academic distinctions whatsoever. Some here have done well in business, but that requires a different skill set than the liberal arts. It dos not require social policy skills. So many people here are by in large selfish and unhappy people. Read their posts.

I know to many good people to let these pathetic excuses for Americans be a representation for our great country. We are a better people than is reflected here.

I have had contact with a number of people who have visited this site and wondered why I would put up with this venom and hatred here. Once actually posted that here a couple of weeks ago. There was a discussion about this site on Twitter. I told them that I grew up around people like this. As a necessity I grew a thick skin. I actually understand them and I am comfortable around them.

My father always taught that we have a responsibility to educate white America about itself. That is why so many white kids in the early sixties were attracted to Malcolm X. He pointed out American hypocrisy better than anyone else in American history. He also made the important connection between the African American holocaust and European colonialism. He pointed out that they were part of the same historical process and system. He was far from the first to do this. African American writers David Walker pointed this out in David Walker’s Appeal 1829 ,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2931t.html

and Martin Delaney in his 1859 Novel Blake

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/africam/blakehp.html

Both were 19th Century Pan-Africanists that you will not learn about in run of the mill American history classes.

Malcolm was the first to say these truths on television, not the first.

These people need their embarrassing ignorance pointed out to them. They are educationally and culturally disadvantaged. They did not go to the best schools, they do not read broadly or interact with a wide variety of people. That is clear from their posts.

I actually feel sorry for them. But you cannot help someone who is not willing to open their mind and even consider the other sides point of view. That’s the problem here. I posted the link to Federalist Paper 10 because I new that my fellow posters here, save a few, would not have read it. Usually in the lower level schools they only expose you to Federalist Papers 52 and 53.

America is and has been a work in progress. America was founded by self centered and egotistical men who perceived their self interest in articulating the ideals that were imbedded in the Declaration of Independence. It was originally meant only for their class, not even for the descendants of poor peasants who populate this site. Remember Thomas Jefferson, considered the greatest of founding fathers was a brutal slave master who molested his slave children. America still has trouble dealing with its unfortunate past.

Take heart. America is a lot better than the poor reflection of it that you see from some of the hate filled, insecure people who post on this site. Most Americans are better than them. Remember President Obama was elected in-spite of them, not by them. He won with 54% of the vote. He won a majority of white voters. This blog is not populated by the people who voted for Obama. This blog is populated by some of the losers, both literally and figuratively.

Paul Westlake said:
Um, civil rights ARE liberal. ;-)

no

Paul Westlake said:
but you can’t equate their copy with the vitriol dripping out of right wing media. So when it comes to the “tone” and “level” of the national dialogue, it rests firmly on the shoulders of right wing media.

I wasn’t equating the mainstream media with ANY “vitriol” whatsoever. I don’t compare them or their influence unfavorably to Rush Limbaugh.

You do that.

Franklin also said:

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”
-Benjamin Franklin, May 9, 1753

Thomas Jefferson said:
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1781

You’re right, Bill – those “radical” Founding Fathers – SO far from the views of the Tea Party and those “bitter clingers” President Obama criticized!

I presume that Marr’s screed is part of that new atmosphere of tolerance and civility?

chasrmartin said:
I presume that Marr’s screed is part of that new atmosphere of tolerance and civility?

Uh, “Maher’s”.

“But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm… But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Sure sounds like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama, Bill Maher (and the rest of the Liberal Democrats) would have HATED James Madison, don’t you think?

Sure sounds like Madison was calling the actions of the LAST Congress (111th) “madness” (and the Tea Party agrees) – no wonder Bill Maher is so upset!

cjd ohio 1 said:
NAACP, racist no, but it has become a liberal organization, not the civil rights organization that it was

It was always a liberal organization. I first attended an NAACP meeting in 1969 where Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court spoke. Are you saying that Thurgood Marshall was not a liberal? The NAACP has been a consistently, liberal organization since its founding in 1909. This is the danger of a Glen Beck who peddles a dishonest, revisionist history to people who have no literacy in American history.

Here is a outlining the founding of the NAACP
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glencoe.com%2Fsec%2Fsocialstudies%2Fbtt%2Fcelebratingfreedom%2Fpdfs%2F181.PDF&ei=Z-0xTbu8KMGugQfb5dTZCw&usg=AFQjCNGYVv3lszpZBLoJS8iG2YZhZzU4nA&sig2=2Q74udw5vKfMaVdR_8NPWw

You should read the writings of W.E.B. Dubois, one of America’s greatest scholars who developed the idea for the NAACP.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_niagara.html

cjd ohio 1 said:
Um, civil rights ARE liberal. ;-)

no

When you define liberal as being anything that progressed society from cave dwelling days, then it makes logical sense to refer to everyone from John Brown to William Penn as being liberal.

Armwood, when are you going to show evidence for your accusation that I made “anti-hispanic”, “white supremacist”, or “racist” comments as you have accused me of doing.

I insist that you show proof or apologize to me.

Bill Maher is 100% right. Thanks Bill for calling it for what it is.

armwood said:
It was always a liberal organization. I first attended an NAACP meeting in 1969 where Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court spoke. Are you saying that Thurgood Marshall was not a liberal? The NAACP has been a consistently, liberal organization since its founding in 1909. This is the danger of a Glen Beck who peddles a dishonest, revisionist history to people who have no literacy in American history. Here is a outlining the founding of the NAACPhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glencoe.com%2Fsec%2Fsocialstudies%2Fbtt%2Fcelebratingfreedom%2Fpdfs%2F181.PDF&ei=Z-0xTbu8KMGugQfb5dTZCw&usg=AFQjCNGYVv3lszpZBLoJS8iG2YZhZzU4nA&sig2=2Q74udw5vKfMaVdR_8NPWw You should read the writings of W.E.B. Dubois, one of America’s greatest scholars who developed the idea for the NAACP. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_niagara.html

fine a liberal organization, but not a civil rights organization because if you only defend one with your point of view, you cant be both

“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”
-John Adams, 1772

There goes another Founding Father, proclaiming his recognition of God.

Once again, Bill, I’m not seeing how the Tea Partiers are supposed to be SO opposed to the Founding Fathers!

Seems to me, YOU are more resentful of their beliefs!

Cecelia said:
Speaking of Bernie Goldberg, I think he gave the perfect example of this when he told the story of Pauline Kael’s surprise over Nixon’s election because she knew no one who voted for him, when over 70% of the country HAD voted on him.

Yes, heard it a thousand times. And it is illustrative of a point, but not the one conservatives use it to make. Kael, like most of the other NY/DC pundits are out of touch with average Americans. And that is true of liberals and conservatives. For instance, every time David Brooks writes something down, he reinforces just how completely ignorant he is of American life. Krugman, while an excellent economist, also has no clue about day-to-day life for most Americans. Elitism is bi-partisan.

Two other points:

1) Bosses make the rules, not employees. It’s not “selling-out,” it’s called doing the job. Nobody in any other work setting is allowed to buck management. Conservatives believe that liberals in the media are capable of doing something that no employee is capable of doing without getting fired in any other work setting. Doesn’t make sense.

2) New York City has more than 8 million people in it. Most of us have families and lead normal lives. This is also the media capital of the world, so we attract a lot of newcomers. Most of the newcomers that arrive from red states couldn’t get here fast enough. And the first thing they do when they get here is take a dump on the old hometown. So, while you may see a lot of city elitism emanating from New York City, it’s actually NOT coming from New Yorkers, but from the former residents of conservative parts of the country who feel they have a birthright to make the home state look stupid. Just a partial list of the original states of colleagues I’ve worked with in NYC from other parts of the country, who ALSO hated where they came from:

Alabama
Georgia
Missouri
Oklahoma
Kansas
Carolinas (both)
Dakotas (both)
Iowa
Indiana
Utah
Texas

There’s more but I’d have to start thinking. ;-)

To summarize, I’m not saying your perception of liberal bias in reporting is wrong, but that it’s only half of the equation. It’s also far less pronounced than most conservatives think, as two decades of polling have shown. But bias of omission is always conservative and far more dangerous – a biased report was at least reported and you can usually see through the slant, but a squelched story is just gone, no chance to even judge its bias. I know I won’t convince anyone that the mainstream media is actually conservative (which it is), but I hope people can at least see how the bias they SEE is offset by the bias they DON’T see. At least among the more media-savvy people who comment here. If you just keep this in mind as you watch the way media operates, I think you’ll see what I mean.

armwood said:
I hope you realize that most white American’s are not as racist as many of the ones that congregate here. This is a group of frustrated, poorly educated, insecure people. Read the quality of their posts. They can barely write. I can’t type but they cannot formulate ideas.

Well, if you’re so much more brilliant than the majority here, you should have no difficulty proving the charges you have made against me.

However, you haven’t as yet. Why?

Cecelia said:
When you define liberal as being anything that progressed society from cave dwelling days, then it makes logical sense to refer to everyone from John Brown to William Penn as being liberal.

Name something conservative that constitutes “progress.”

armwood said:
I hope you realize that most white American’s are not as racist as many of the ones that congregate here. This is a group of frustrated, poorly educated, insecure people. Read the quality of their posts. They can barely write. I can’t type but they cannot formulate ideas.

armwood said:
My father always taught that we have a responsibility to educate white America about itself. .

Cecelia . Here is the proof of Army’s racism . He is also victimizing his own people who pay him $24.95 / hour for his opinion . There’s no shortage of suckers . This is a know it all who knows not much . A verbose , dense , obnoxious individual .

Jeffrey Immelt is chairman of GE, owner of NBC and MSNBC. Robert Iger is chairman of Disney (ABC). Jeffrey Bewkes is chairman of Time Warner (CW, HBO). Sumner Redstone runs CBS Corporation (CBS). All are liberal Democrats. Would they ever let their personal political views seep into their networks? Surely they’re all above that.

NewsBusters: Bizarrely, Maher Blames Tucson Shooting On…Lack of ObamaCare
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/01/15/bizarrely-maher-blames-tucson-shooting-onlack-obamacare

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams, October 11, 1798

You know, NO WHERE could I find ANY of our Founding Fathers saying ANYTHING that would suggest that they believed that the Constitution was a “Living, Breathing” document.

Pretty RADICAL, those Founding Fathers!

Cecelia said:
Is anyone surprised that this new reverence for modulated political rhetoric seems to only go one way….

Oh Modulate This—Cecelia—come down off you “better-than-thou cloud….it gets old.

Oh, and Armie just to show proof that the NAACP is a racist organization here is a quote from the site you posted: “Wilkins retired as executive director in 1977 and was replaced by Benjamin L. Hooks, whose tenure included the Bakke case (1978), in which a California court outlawed several aspects of affirmative action. At around the same time tensions between the executive director and the board of directors, tensions that had existed since the association’s founding, escalated into open hostility that threatened to weaken the organization. With the 1993 selection of Benjamin F. Chavis (now Chavis Muhammad) as director, more controversies arose. In an attempt to take the NAACP in new directions, Chavis offended many liberals by reaching out to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. After using NAACP funds to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, Chavis was forced to resign in 1995 and subsequently joined the Nation of Islam.”

Benjamin F Chavis was certainly a racist. He let the NAACP. Therefor, by the same logic that you and others have used to label the Tea Party movement as racist, the NAACP is racist. Not as racist as the Nation of Islam, or course.

Now, let us talk about you, Armie. When did you first realize that you were a racist?

Cecelia said:
Well, if you’re so much more brilliant than the majority here, you should have no difficulty proving the charges you have made against me.
However, you haven’t as yet. Why?

Because he’s a dope . Don’t look for an apology from this racist with a huge chip on his shoulder .

We know the truth . He never will .

Just damn .

“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
-Thomas Paine, 1791

Hey Bill, this sounds like it could have been a speech at a Tea Party – complaining about EXCESSIVE and GREEDY Government Taxation, don’t you think?

Chalk another PRO-Tea Party Founding Father!

armwood said:
You should read the writings of W.E.B. Dubois, one of America’s greatest scholars who developed the idea for the NAACP.

Hello

I am here to debate politics with you .

Is there no cure for Bill Maher’s verbal diarrhea of the mouth? He can’t stop his spewing of hatred upon anyone who does not agree with his limited point of view.

He is just another loser like Howard Stern that needs to keep his ugly face in the limelight, hoping to get more viewers to watch his boring guest wherein everyone is agreeing and chuckling like immature children do, at the word butt and fart.

But then again that is a good description of his TV show, it is nothing but butt farts..

None of the Founders would have had the slightest tolerance for Maher or anyone like him. They would have shipped him off to Canada.

But that was then. I doubt the Canadians have much use for him now. Ten minutes after arriving he’d start attacking their culture and heritage.

Paul Westlake said:
To summarize, I’m not saying your perception of liberal bias in reporting is wrong, but that it’s only half of the equation. It’s also far less pronounced than most conservatives think, as two decades of polling have shown. But bias of omission is always conservative and far more dangerous – a biased report was at least reported and you can usually see through the slant, but a squelched story is just gone, no chance to even judge its bias. I know I won’t convince anyone that the mainstream media is actually conservative (which it is), but I hope people can at least see how the bias they SEE is offset by the bias they DON’T see. At least among the more media-savvy people who comment here. If you just keep this in mind as you watch the way media operates, I think you’ll see what I mean.

I don’t at see elitism coming from New York or New Yorkers.

That seems to be an occupational hazard around here, you’re ascribed an entire regalia of opinion based upon one opinion you are articulating at the time.

I don’t consider mainstream media members to be representative of “mainstream” Everyday Joes.

Neither does the polling evidence, that shows them to be far more likely to be Democratic and liberal than the general public.

And no, I think it’s easy to typecast every corporate head as being Baron Vanderbilt, but it’s an shallow stereotype that does not fit with reality.

Too, I have no troubling believing that corporate entities might tear their hair out over stories that have no public interest or that don’t suit their advertisers, but I don’t think the incident of corporate puppet-mastery is as widespread as you suggest. And make no mistake, THAT is what you’re suggesting.

When you say that news department routinely allow their agenda to be set by corporate, then you are suggesting that these people routinely and institutionally sell-out. With THAT you are saying something far more cynical and pejorative against the media than even Rush Limbaugh might make.

Acting out of political bias, is still acting in a way that you deem to be for the good of those around you. Daily and inherently compromising your journalistic standards via squelched or creatively edited stories in order to have a pay check is not. It’s a suggestion that there is something far more pernicious going on in journalism than a conservative has ever charged.

It’s hyperbolic, it’s distorted, and it’s wrong.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
-Alexander Hamilton, 1788

In SIMPLE terms (so YOU can understand it, Bill), he’s saying that the Bill of Rights is NOT NEEDED, because it enumerates RESTRICTIONS on Government – that Government ALREADY CANNOT DO (by virtue of the Constitution itself NOT vesting the Government with the power to do so).

I’m STILL not seeing how the Tea Partiers are supposed to be OPPOSED to those “radical” Founding Fathers!

Paul Westlake said:
I’ve worked with in NYC from other parts of the country, who ALSO hated where they came from:

Alabama
Georgia
Missouri
Oklahoma
Kansas
Carolinas (both)
Dakotas (both)
Iowa
Indiana
Utah
Texas

If anyone hates living in Texas, NY can gladly have them.

glenn113 said:
Bill Maher is 100% right. Thanks Bill for calling it for what it is.

Your are 100% an idiot. No need to thank me for calling it what it is.

Paul Westlake said:
Name something conservative that constitutes “progress.”

That’s a nonsensical question, they leads to a circular argument, as seen endlessly on blog boards.

If point out the ancient Greeks, you’ll suggest they were liberals for their more lax sexual standards, if I point to a Christian teachers who first taught women to read, you will say it was because they were acting out of liberal impulse.

It’s an argument that is wholly one of semantics.

The Lantern of Truth said:
KING teaching a fool . Arms , it’s very sad that someone your age brings up schools and TESTS from many , many years gone by . Your errors are not just typing errors . You have a lack of comprehension and knowledge that you display in each of your rantings . Your inferiority complex is one of the most severe I have seen . You are self centered , contentious and totally without people skills . Look into your own shortcomings before displaying them so foolishly in public . You are the type of person everyone knows , a blowhard who is humored by his acquaintances , but mocked behind his back . You know this to be the case . You possibly can change and I hope you do .

The Lantern/King said it well . Ditto .

Funny, this is EXACTLY what our Founders would think of LIBERALS! SPOT ON!

“[T]he Founding Fathers would have hated your guts…and what’s more, you would have hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.” AND, they wrote a Constitution that is too hard for liberals to understand!

Patrick Henry said:
I’ve worked with in NYC from other parts of the country, who ALSO hated where they came from:

Alabama
Georgia
Missouri
Oklahoma
Kansas
Carolinas (both)
Dakotas (both)
Iowa
Indiana
Utah
Texas

I”m not sure what point was being made there anyway… New York is a toddln town? “I Love New York”?

Nachi said:
Maher is, of course, quite correct. He possesses proper insight into such rabid, repressive podents. Wasted souls – in dire need of a cause & a crutch. They but suck blood from the Great Hound of Life. Nobodies who will never be…anybodies.

Of course he does, monkey man. Look at all that education and life experience he has.

Georgia999 said:
Cecelia said:
Is anyone surprised that this new reverence for modulated political rhetoric seems to only go one way….

Oh Modulate This—Cecelia—come down off you “better-than-thou cloud….it gets old.

Evidently, I wasn’t the only who was not surprised…

Paul Westlake said:
Name something conservative that constitutes “progress.”

Most everything about Conservatism is about progress. It’s about seeking the truth and getting better. That’s progress.

On the other hand, Modern Liberalism/Progressivism is about making this “equal”. Progress is lost because the very nature of trying to make things equal means that progress/success must be inhibited and what is failing must be elevated. In the end, progress is lost.

ndanielson said:
Funny, this is EXACTLY what our Founders would think of LIBERALS! SPOT ON!

“[T]he Founding Fathers would have hated your guts…and what’s more, you would have hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.” AND, they wrote a Constitution that is too hard for liberals to understand!

What part of a Liberal Arts Degree has science in it? (Pseudo science does not count.)

What part of a Liberal Arts Degree has geography in it? ie, most liberals couldn’t find Paris on a map, let alone know why the Founders were there. How many liberals know who Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville was, and how much he admired the “American Experiment”?

How many conservatives know that Plato is way overrated? Most, I hope.

And we all know what liberals think of the Bible!

Touché, cupcake, Maher! MAHER, projectionist extraordinaire!

I wondering how Maher morphed the Tea Party people into mini-Ralph Reeds.

ndanielson said:
What part of a Liberal Arts Degree has science in it? (Pseudo science does not count.)

What part of a Liberal Arts Degree has geography in it? ie, most liberals couldn’t find Paris on a map, let alone know why the Founders were there. How many liberals know who Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville was, and how much he admired the “American Experiment”?

How many conservatives know that Plato is way overrated? Most, I hope.

And we all know what liberals think of the Bible!

Touché, cupcake, Maher! MAHER, projectionist extraordinaire!

Only the Founders did not despise the Bible, and had a reverence for God. In fact, EVERY single State Constitution in the Union has a reference to God within the first paragraph. And liberals slobber to make this 5″-nothing clown filthy rich.

J Baustian said:
None of the Founders would have had the slightest tolerance for Maher or anyone like him. They would have shipped him off to Canada.

Well, if you go by Maher’s reasoning our Deist Founding Fathers may have hated him for being a atheist who thinks that our inherent rights flow from human conceit.

minorityreport said:
I dont understand the level of hate in America. America is a great country, it is intolerant fools from the right that gives it a bad name. You might argue that you just hate his policies and ideology, but we all know you feel that the white house has been taken over by the WU-TANG Clan

Congratulations, you are officially part of the hate. You hate all white people with opposing political ideas from your own. Instead of aiming at the racist minority you’ve decided to lump all white people into one category and hate them all. I can’t understand your level of intolerance.

Cecelia said:
Too, I have no troubling believing that corporate entities might tear their hair out over stories that have no public interest or that don’t suit their advertisers, but I don’t think the incident of corporate puppet-mastery is as widespread as you suggest.

Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

Cecelia said:
That’s a nonsensical question, they leads to a circular argument, as seen endlessly on blog boards.

No, it points out the nonsensical nature of claiming conservatism leads to progress. For instance…

Alz said:
Most everything about Conservatism is about progress. It’s about seeking the truth and getting better. That’s progress.

That’s just silly. Seeking truth is neither liberal nor conservative. It’s what we do with truth that makes the difference. Conservatism is about preserving the established conventions And the particular brand of reactionary conservatism espoused by most right-wing commentators here is about recreating a by-gone era based on a romantic nostalgia for a world that never was. That’s the antithesis of “progress.” LOL

Cecelia said:
If point out the ancient Greeks, you’ll suggest they were liberals for their more lax sexual standards

Lax sexual standards? That insinuation is insulting and indicative of intellectual bankruptcy. Why don’t you ask your boys John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig about lax sexual standards. The only difference between the right and left in that regard is in the rampant hypocrisy of right-wing public figures getting busted for doing the very things they use to falsely (mostly) impugn the characters of their opponents.

Cecelia said:
if I point to a Christian teachers who first taught women to read, you will say it was because they were acting out of liberal impulse.

Yes, because treating women as equals IS a liberal idea. Just because conservatives get on board with progressive ideas a generation or two (hundred) later doesn’t mean they own the ideas. And women’s bodies are STILL treated as property OF THE STATE by so-called small-government conservatives, so that dog won’t hunt.

Cecelia said:
It’s an argument that is wholly one of semantics.

By that logic all arguments are semantics, so commenting here is a waste of your time. But if we take the definitions of words to mean what they actually mean, not what conservatives would like them to mean, the semantics break down when “conservative” is used to define “progress.”

ndanielson said:
Only the Founders did not despise the Bible, and had a reverence for God. In fact, EVERY single State Constitution in the Union has a reference to God within the first paragraph.

But the real question is does the federal constitution have any reference to “God” in it? Nope.

As professor of American history Jill Lepore wrote, “Forty-four hundred words and ‘God’ is not one of them, as Benjamin Rush complained to John Adams, hoping for an emendation: ‘Perhaps an acknowledgement [sic] might be made of his goodness or of his providence in the proposed amendments.’ It was not.”

That’s not to say the Founding Fathers (a term not coined until the 20th century) were not religious, indeed they were. However, today we would probably not find them at an evangelical church with the rest of the Tea Baggers.

Also, state constitutions are quaint and anachronistic things: South Carolina had a clause in its constitution that office holders had to believe in a Supreme Being, which was rule as unconstitutional.

ndanielson said:
And liberals slobber to make this 5″-nothing clown filthy rich.

Also I didn’t know Maher was 5 inches tall or that being “filthy rich” was a bad thing; are you some kind of socialist that begrudges other people’s wealth?

Alz said:
On the other hand, Modern Liberalism/Progressivism is about making this “equal”.

PS – Look, if you want to try to sell that load of horseshit to the gullible, be my guest, but stop trying to convince me that up is down. I’ve already destroyed that “make everything equal” stupidity of yours a dozen times and I know it’s just a waste of time trying to argue with you. You’re a broken record. But you’ll never get anything but total ridicule out of me if you throw this moronic meme at me again. I know you think I’m a complete asshole already, so just imagine how big an asshole I can be when I’m actually trying. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. No, it points out the nonsensical nature of claiming conservatism leads to progress. For instance… That’s just silly. Seeking truth is neither liberal nor conservative. It’s what we do with truth that makes the difference. Conservatism is about preserving the established conventions And the particular brand of reactionary conservatism espoused by most right-wing commentators here is about recreating a by-gone era based on a romantic nostalgia for a world that never was. That’s the antithesis of “progress.” LOL Lax sexual standards? That insinuation is insulting and indicative of intellectual bankruptcy. Why don’t you ask your boys John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig about lax sexual standards. The only difference between the right and left in that regard is in the rampant hypocrisy of right-wing public figures getting busted for doing the very things they use to falsely (mostly) impugn the characters of their opponents. Yes, because treating women as equals IS a liberal idea. Just because conservatives get on board with progressive ideas a generation or two (hundred) later doesn’t mean they own the ideas. And women’s bodies are STILL treated as property OF THE STATE by so-called small-government conservatives, so that dog won’t hunt. By that logic all arguments are semantics, so commenting here is a waste of your time. But if we take the definitions of words to mean what they actually mean, not what conservatives would like them to mean, the semantics break down when “conservative” is used to define “progress.”

women’s bodies treated like property of the state? what the hell are you talking about

ROCKSTEADY said:
He’s right.

Actually, Maher is cherrypicking, presenting a misleading one-sided answer.

The Founders would have hated both major parties’ guts. The Founders hated tyranny and out-of-control government. The Founders would take one look at 20th Century socialism and reckless government abuses and vomit that the Constitution they worked so hard to set up had been tossed out the window by crooked pols and NOT ENFORCED BY ALL-TOO-COMFORTABLE-FOOLS who didn’t appreciate their warnings about eternal vigilance.

The Founders would be hoping that libertarianism could catch on again before the Republic completely collapses.

ndanielson said:
What part of a Liberal Arts Degree has science in it? (Pseudo science does not count.)

What part of a Liberal Arts Degree has geography in it? ie, most liberals couldn’t find Paris on a map, let alone know why the Founders were there. How many liberals know who Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville was, and how much he admired the “American Experiment”?

How many conservatives know that Plato is way overrated? Most, I hope.

And we all know what liberals think of the Bible!

Touché, cupcake, Maher! MAHER, projectionist extraordinaire!

What university or college did you graduate from? Oh wait, you’re probably self-educated (an autodidact) at the school of hard knocks and “common sense.” If common sense is so common why would anyone want it; other things that are common: belly button lint, rocks, garbage, and stupid people.

If you had bothered to look up what a “Liberal Arts Degree” (which you bizarrely capitalized) is then you would know that “In modern colleges and universities the liberal arts include the study of literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science as the basis of a general, or liberal, education”

Nice going brainiac!

He raises a valid point even if you don’t like him.

The founders were wealthy, intellectual men. They were not “common folk” or country farmers….they were educated elites.

Let’s also not forget that the politics of the 1780s do not line up directly with the Left-Right spectrum of today.

cjd ohio 1 said:
women’s bodies treated like property of the state? what the hell are you talking about

The word war/confusion is a mess.

The Founders were “liberals” when “liberal” meant what “libertarian” means today.

Most “liberals” by today’s definition are STATISTS, meaning they favor the state over the individual, as Fascists and Socialists and Communists do. Progressives are STATISTS as well.

‘Conservative’ is a dumb term just like progressive. Literally, each describes that they are for maintaining the old or bringing the new. Without regard to what the old and new are. A conservative in communist Russia in 1988 means what? A progressive at the same time would be tearing down the wall and trying to establish freedom and private property.

Libertarian and Statist are the most useful terms. Eash says clearly what it stands for.

Cecelia said:
Is anyone surprised that this new reverence for modulated political rhetoric seems to only go one way….

We still aren’t killing people. You are. Nutjob.

gargoyle said:
Neither the Rightys nor the Leftys would have anything to talk about if something like that were passed. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed. What we need is about a decade of nothing but repeal of bad law.

Gasket said:
I haven’t read the response but can respond to it here. You can not use lyrics in a rap song to define the person as a whole. Ice Cube is not a racist. You may as well call all rappers “racist’ using that myopic viewpoint. It’s a canard.

Gasket, what was his artistic goal in writing that song? When Mark Twain has Huck Finn state that he knows it’s wrong and a mortal sin to help free Jim from slavery but that he’d rather go to hell than do the right thing, I know exactly where Mark Twain stands. Could you explain to me what Ice Cube’s point was in writing “Cave Bitch”? Again, the arbiters of decency (algorithmic or simply algore-ific) won’t allow me to post the lyrics. But the term Cave Bitch refers to white women and the song includes genetic arguments for white inferiority. Yet, Gasket and some other poster don’t think Ice Cube is a racist.

So I repeat the question, what was Ice Cube trying to achieve artistically with this song or another racist song “Horny Li’l Devil.” (p.s. that’s devil as in “white devil”)

Paul Westlake said:
Seeking truth is neither liberal nor conservative.

No, it’s Conservative. It’s not Modern Liberal/Progressive. Let’s be clear on who I am talking about.

When making choices, the Modern Liberal/Progressive chooses the path that works to make things “equal”, not better.

This is why Modern Liberals/Progressives avoid the truth and have to make things up. I know you won’t get this, but some others will.

I gotta watch this quote function. Tryng again….

Paul Westlake said:
Name something conservative that constitutes “progress.”

A good time to mention that the language of all of this debate is a mess.

The Founders were “liberals” when “liberal” meant what “libertarian” means today.

Most “liberals” by today’s definition are STATISTS, meaning they favor the state over the individual, as Fascists and Socialists and Communists do. Progressives are STATISTS as well.

‘Conservative’ is a dumb term just like progressive. Literally, each describes that they are for maintaining the old or bringing the new. Without regard to what the old and new are. A conservative in communist Russia in 1988 means what? A progressive at the same time would be tearing down the wall and trying to establish freedom and private property.

Libertarian and Statist are the most useful terms. Eash says clearly what it stands for.

Paul Westlake said:
By that logic all arguments are semantics, so commenting here is a waste of your time. But if we take the definitions of words to mean what they actually mean, not what conservatives would like them to mean, the semantics break down when “conservative” is used to define “progress.”

Paul Westlake FTW!

Why is it that we spend time to actually craft logical arguments supported by evidence, when all we get in return from the conservative trolls on this site are one sentence replies that are poorly spelled, use incorrect grammar, and bizarre syntax?

>>Maher’s assertions might not have been all on the mark, but there’s no question plenty of people will be talking about them.

I’m sure it was his intention to get people talking about him…though his recycling attacks on the tea party is getting boring. He should get some new material.

“I heard a joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life is harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world. Doctor says, “Treatment is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go see him. That should pick you up.” Man bursts into tears.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/billmaher.jpg

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/wp-content/uploads/bill_maher.jpg

Says, “But doctor… I am Pagliacci.” Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains. “

SuperChuñdy said:
What university or college did you graduate from? Oh wait, you’re probably self-educated (an autodidact) at the school of hard knocks and “common sense.” If common sense is so common why would anyone want it; other things that are common: belly button lint, rocks, garbage, and stupid people.

If you had bothered to look up what a “Liberal Arts Degree” (which you bizarrely capitalized) is then you would know that “In modern colleges and universities the liberal arts include the study of literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science as the basis of a general, or liberal, education”

Nice going brainiac!

My university? Oregon Institute of Technology for a BS in Engineering. And you, cupcake? It doesn’t really matter. Liberals are useless to talk to as their heads are all filled with pseudo science like child psychology, woman’s studies, black history, under water basket weaving, cool stuff like that. http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2009/02/25/the-15-strangest-college-courses-in-america/. Nice going to you, cupcake. Why would a science major look up a liberal arts curriculum? so I could see cupcake baking 101? Nice list of pseudo science there, for the most part. Did you miss the part where I said you could omit those? You don’t like Liberal Arts Degree being capitalized? Wow, cupcake, pretty picky huh? What about the other things Mahar was spot on about, in his projection?

Alz said:
No, it’s Conservative. It’s not Modern Liberal/Progressive. Let’s be clear on who I am talking about. When making choices, the Modern Liberal/Progressive chooses the path that works to make things “equal”, not better. This is why Modern Liberals/Progressives avoid the truth and have to make things up. I know you won’t get this, but some others will.

This is a bizarre argument you’re making that seeking truth is conservative. Either you’re so blinded by partisan rage that you’re not thinking straight or you really do believe what you’re saying. Either way, you’re a lost cause and anyone who is literate can read it for themselves.

Come to think of it “Alz” is probably short for Alzheimer, isn’t it?

Of ALL the people in America today, the ones the Founders would like best are the libertarians at the core of the Tea Party movement. These people ACTIVELY stand for the rights of the individual over the state. They stand for non-interventionist foreign policy. They stand for the letter of the Constitution. All things the Founders fought and died for.

Paul Westlake said:
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

That’s not argument, Paul. Certainly not one that’s suitable to your charge that tv journalism is institutionally corrupt from top to bottom.

Paul Westlake said:
That’s just silly. Seeking truth is neither liberal nor conservative. It’s what we do with truth that makes the difference. Conservatism is about preserving the established conventions And the particular brand of reactionary conservatism espoused by most right-wing commentators here is about recreating a by-gone era based on a romantic nostalgia for a world that never was. That’s the antithesis of “progress.” LOL

You had it right when said that truth does not flow from ideological constructs (it something apart from human conceit and no one it’s sole proprietor) then you just descended into the partisan polemics.

In these sorts of “argument’, it’s impossible not to do that. That’s why they defy logic.

Paul Westlake said:
Lax sexual standards? That insinuation is insulting and indicative of intellectual bankruptcy. Why don’t you ask your boys John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig about lax sexual standards. The only difference between the right and left in that regard is in the rampant hypocrisy of right-wing public figures getting busted for doing the very things they use to falsely (mostly) impugn the characters of their opponents.

I didn’t say “lax”, I said “more lax”,. Their standards for emancipated sex among patrician women certainly are more reflective of progressive mores than conservative ones.

By your reference to Vitter or company are you suggesting that because individuals fail, ideologies have no fundamental premises? That would be like arguing that there are no sexual standards within Christianity, because individual Christians often ignore them. That socialism has no core tenets because high ranking Soviets got dachas…

My statement wasn’t a indictment of permissivism or liberalism or the Greeks. It was prefaced upon known differences in the stridency of some sexual mores among liberals and conservatives. And most of all it was an attempt to illustrate that if I say so-and-so had A, the rebuttal will always be “but they also had B”, so they weren’t purely D….

Paul Westlake said:
Yes, because treating women as equals IS a liberal idea. Just because conservatives get on board with progressive ideas a generation or two (hundred) later doesn’t mean they own the ideas. And women’s bodies are STILL treated as property OF THE STATE by so-called small-government conservatives, so that dog won’t hunt.

Actually, no Christians of old didn’t “get on board” with the notion, in this country, they initiated it. Most education was bought about the church.

Again, this only goes to show that this is a circular argument that goes no where but to the ego of the people arguing it.

It would be considered offensive if someone wrote here that all human progress stemmed from Catholicism or Presbyterianism or Western Civilization. But you’ll have people making the same sort of ridiculous reductive arguments concerning political ideology. It’s pointless.

YOU engage in it since it’s meaningful to you. It means nothing to me, I believe my political ideals are true and good, but I don’t believe and I don’t have to believe that they are not just good, but are representative of an impulse, nature, or philosophy from which flows all the goodness that there can be.

I leave that or variations of it, for you to argue with someone else.

SuperChuñdy said:
But the real question is does the federal constitution have any reference to “God” in it? Nope.

As professor of American history Jill Lepore wrote, “Forty-four hundred words and ‘God’ is not one of them, as Benjamin Rush complained to John Adams, hoping for an emendation: ‘Perhaps an acknowledgement [sic] might be made of his goodness or of his providence in the proposed amendments.’ It was not.”

That’s not to say the Founding Fathers (a term not coined until the 20th century) were not religious, indeed they were. However, today we would probably not find them at an evangelical church with the rest of the Tea Baggers.

Also, state constitutions are quaint and anachronistic things: South Carolina had a clause in its constitution that office holders had to believe in a Supreme Being, which was rule as unconstitutional.

Also I didn’t know Maher was 5 inches tall or that being “filthy rich” was a bad thing; are you some kind of socialist that begrudges other people’s wealth?

I don’t begrudge other people’s wealth, I just don’t think the government has a right to it. Especially to fund liberal policies and programs like healthcare for “kids” up to 26 years old, free breakfast, lunch and dinner at schools, abortion, and government bailouts, affirmative action, and reverse discrimination, NPR, etc… to name only a few. How’ bout you, cupcake? I don’t believe in spreading the wealth, as I find that to be socialism cupcake, how ’bout you? I believe in a limited federal government, cupcake, how ’bout you? I don’t believe in public sector unions, cupcake, how ’bout you? I believe in personal responsibility and the American flag, cupcake, how ’bout you?

SuperChuñdy said:
No, Ice Cube is not a racist,but he is a scourge on society for making Are We There Yet?”

You don’t think Ice Cube is a racist after reading the lyrics to a song like “Cave Bitch” and looking at the background of the guy Ice Cube chose to read the introduction and review Ice Cube’s relationship to the Nation of Islam. Please explain with reference to the song, if you can. Draw the distinction between the narrator of that song and the point of the song itself.

SuperChuñdy said:
This is a bizarre argument you’re making that seeking truth is conservative. Either you’re so blinded by partisan rage that you’re not thinking straight or you really do believe what you’re saying. Either way, you’re a lost cause and anyone who is literate can read it for themselves.

Come to think of it “Alz” is probably short for Alzheimer, isn’t it?

Watch this vid: “How Modern Liberals Think” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c .

It’s not short, but it explains a lot about how leftists think. It’s by a guy named Evan Sayet. Evan used to be a writer for Bill Maher. Try to find some quiet, uninterrupted time and watch the whole thing, including the Q&A at the end.

bundesheer said:
We still aren’t killing people. You are. Nutjob.

Who have I killed?

For the record, this is a video of the guy whom Ice Cube asks to speak the introduction to the song Cave Bitch.
He’s on the Phil Donahue–not as a persona but as a person expressing what he really thinks–telling people how much he loves Colin Ferguson (racist subway shooter) and advocates killing white babies in South Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RcSbxuXjA

Super chundy (whatever the hell that is) seems to be a liberal that believes that anything the government wants, it should have. We have the most liberal president in any living American’s life time, and a media and journalists, 99% of whom are down with government. Whatever happened to question authority, superboy? Whatever happened to journalists who questioned their government, super boy? I bet you can name only one network that does, superboy, and I can guess your opinion of that one. What network does superboy think is critical of government, superboy?

ndanielson said:
My university? Oregon Institute of Technology for a BS in Engineering. And you, cupcake? It doesn’t really matter.

Wait, you went to a public institution; you “socialist.” I, on the other hand, will graduate from a private liberal arts college: Whitman College (ranked 38th by US News & World Report; where did OIT ranked?)

Your response is why people should attend liberal arts colleges: only emotionally insecure people, like yourself, would believe an entire subset of people are “cupcakes.” Why would you think that calling me a cupcake would be an insult? I love cupcakes. Although, it does reveal your own weird preoccupation with pastries.

(Also for someone who attended OTI, you’d think you could use html.)

Paul Westlake said:
And what “free-market economies” did Franklin study when he arrived at that conclusion?

You mean BESIDES those of which he spoke (but did not enumerate)?

Perhaps he studied OUR OWN:
“The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tired sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; –that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontente, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in divission of victails and cloaths, than he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victuals, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and younger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it. ”

“All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they [the pilgims] begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set downe every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves… And so assigned to every family a parceel of land. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Gov. or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledge weakness, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and opression.”

“By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God. And in the effect of their perticular planting was well seene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, 50 as any generall wante of famine hath not been amongest them since to this day.”

-William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647

I’m QUITE sure he didn’t study Mao or Marx or Keynes (but had he, I’m sure he would have come to the SAME conculsion as he did).

Sean68 said:
You don’t think Ice Cube is a racist after reading the lyrics to a song like “Cave Bitch” and looking at the background of the guy Ice Cube chose to read the introduction and review Ice Cube’s relationship to the Nation of Islam. Please explain with reference to the song, if you can. Draw the distinction between the narrator of that song and the point of the song itself.

I don’t care if Ice Cube is racist because he doesn’t exist. O’Shea Jackson, on the other hand, is a real person and probably not a racist. I don’t know and I don’t care. If he is then he should reform his ways. I don’t know Mr. Jackson and I’m not going to pretend that I know what he believes.

SuperChuñdy said:
I don’t care if Ice Cube is racist because he doesn’t exist. O’Shea Jackson, on the other hand, is a real person and probably not a racist. I don’t know and I don’t care. If he is then he should reform his ways. I don’t know Mr. Jackson and I’m not going to pretend that I know what he believes.

Well, he is. And since you admit your effing ignorance you ought to keep that hole in your head shut.

Sean68 said:
Well, he is. And since you admit your effing ignorance you ought to keep that hole in your head shut.

Whoah. Sorry. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a FUTURE graduate of the 38th best school in the country.

Sean68 said:
Well, he is. And since you admit your effing ignorance you ought to keep that hole in your head shut.

What’s you obsession with Ice Cube and making sure everyone knows he’s racist anyways? It’s one thing to argue politics here; it’s another to engage in a solipsistic masturbatory session about Ice Cube.

But yeah, I’m the one who is showing his “effing ignorance.”

Sean68 said:
Whoah. Sorry. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a FUTURE graduate of the 38th best school in the country.

Quoting yourself: Like I said, you are engaging in a solipsistic masturbatory session.

Sean68 said:
Maher is like porn for the left. Equating a diverse group of men such as founding fathers with the contemporary left? It’s not quite that simple. Were Maher not a one-note charlie, he’d know that.

Idiot! He didn’t say today’s Democrats or what you call “leftists,” which is total bullshit, are in any way equal to the founding fathers. Most of the high level players among the founding fathers were Deists, agnostics, and atheists, some of them went to church but few believed what was spewed from the pulpit was anything but harmless trash. Get a grip. The in the United States of America, most Democrats are Christians. Fewer nonbelievers would be found among the “left” than among the founding fathers by percent of the population.

Why the right wing in America believes that they are somehow “Constitutional” is beyond the pale of ignorance and into the world of absolute stupidity and for you likely brain damage.

SuperChuñdy said:
What’s you obsession with Ice Cube and making sure everyone knows he’s racist anyways? It’s one thing to argue politics here; it’s another to engage in a solipsistic masturbatory session about Ice Cube. But yeah, I’m the one who is showing his “effing ignorance.” Quoting yourself: Like I said, you are engaging in a solipsistic masturbatory session.

Wow. Solipsistic. You ARE in college aren’t you? LOL. Defend the song, kid.

You’ve been challenged.

murphy0071 said:
Idiot! He didn’t say today’s Democrats or what you call “leftists,” which is total bullshit, are in any way equal to the founding fathers. Most of the high level players among the founding fathers were Deists, agnostics, and atheists, some of them went to church but few believed what was spewed from the pulpit was anything but harmless trash. Get a grip. The in the United States of America, most Democrats are Christians. Fewer nonbelievers would be found among the “left” than among the founding fathers by percent of the population. Why the right wing in America believes that they are somehow “Constitutional” is beyond the pale of ignorance and into the world of absolute stupidity and for you likely brain damage.

Idiot? Ouch, Ouch! What is this, an politicized internet discussion board?

Behold Superchunk, on a one-boy crusade to defend the liberals against anything Fox, Rush, and anything the right is critical of government about. Grammar king and political historian, extraordinaire. Lliberal arts curriculum defender and all around denier of anything remotely right. Go superchunk, go!

Sean68 said:
Wow. Solipsistic. You ARE in college aren’t you? LOL. Defend the song, kid. You’ve been challenged.

You’re trying to be serious, so I suppose I should as well. You seem to imply that “Ice Cube” is a literary invention of O’Shea Jackson and that Jackson uses this invention to express opinions other than what he actually believes, through the use, I suppose, of dramatic irony or something akin? You’re young–and that’s not your fault–but I know what I’m talking about.

Could you imagine a white performer writing a song that spoke of black women and black people in general and who hung around David Duke being given his own TV show (and before that movies) by a major cable channel?

murphy0071 said:
Idiot! He didn’t say today’s Democrats or what you call “leftists,” which is total bullshit, are in any way equal to the founding fathers. Most of the high level players among the founding fathers were Deists, agnostics, and atheists, some of them went to church but few believed what was spewed from the pulpit was anything but harmless trash. Get a grip. The in the United States of America, most Democrats are Christians. Fewer nonbelievers would be found among the “left” than among the founding fathers by percent of the population. Why the right wing in America believes that they are somehow “Constitutional” is beyond the pale of ignorance and into the world of absolute stupidity and for you likely brain damage.

YOU I’m playing along with. Which of the major founding fathers were atheists? Names and evidence. And for the record, you’re being asked this question by a life-long agnostic.

SuperChuñdy said:
What’s you obsession with Ice Cube and making sure everyone knows he’s racist anyways? It’s one thing to argue politics here; it’s another to engage in a solipsistic masturbatory session about Ice Cube.

But yeah, I’m the one who is showing his “effing ignorance.”

Quoting yourself: Like I said, you are engaging in a solipsistic masturbatory session.

Full of big words and packed full of liberal talking points, he boldly takes on anyone questioning his benevolent government. A government whose leader has never worked outside of government, or academia, whose wife is only slightly more proud today than the true American patriot…Bill Maher! Go, superchunk, go!

Sean68 said:
YOU I’m playing along with. Which of the major founding fathers were atheists? Names and evidence. And for the record, you’re being asked this question by a life-long agnostic.

P.S. I’ll give you Paine.

Paul Westlake said:
David Gregory is a terrible example. All the lefties I know think he’s in the tank for conservatives. And whenever I watch him, I’m almost convinced he’s a Republican. And none of those “memes” you think the mainstream media pushes (Noam Chomsky? How about the public option! Just once can we have that debate!?), approach the level of bombast from right wing media. You can falsely accuse Couric and Williams of liberal bias and might stick, but you can’t equate their copy with the vitriol dripping out of right wing media. So when it comes to the “tone” and “level” of the national dialogue, it rests firmly on the shoulders of right wing media.

Just about everything you are coming up with is polar opposites from the Conservative position.

There is no reason to debate the “public option”, for example, because it’s wrong. FUNDAMENTALLY, it’s wrong for the government to be the only HMO. Why debate it?

It’s the same for many other issues.

The problem for the Left is the track record is clear in that left wing ideas generally don’t work, or they don’t work for long, or they are grossly over priced, etc.

And you can’t even admit that Couric and Williams are lefty’s. It’s beyond ludicrous. This is why people don’t take deep-down Modern Liberals/Progressives very seriously.

Actually, it’s not the real reason…it goes deeper as I have explained before. You guys have a different belief system than normal people.

Normal people want things better or a path to make things better. You guys want things “equal”. In order to force everything to be “equal”, you guys have to treat people unequally. It can never work.

The elections show that people at least realize that liberal ideas don’t work. They don’t know about this “equal” stuff, but they are learning.

So you guys are getting more and more delusional because you have no where to go.

SuperChuñdy said:
What’s you obsession with Ice Cube and making sure everyone knows he’s racist anyways? It’s one thing to argue politics here; it’s another to engage in a solipsistic masturbatory session about Ice Cube.

But yeah, I’m the one who is showing his “effing ignorance.”

Quoting yourself: Like I said, you are engaging in a solipsistic masturbatory session.

A leader for which epistemological solipsism ranks as his only meaningful and apparent characteristic. But that won’t stop him, as he boldly states: Wait, you went to a public institution; you “socialist.” I, on the other hand, will graduate from a private liberal arts college: Whitman College (ranked 38th by US News & World Report. And then askes: where did OIT ranked?) Oh yes, his genius know no bounds as he asks of his liberal professors: which way to the unisex bathrooms, I forgot my period?

Nacho said:
I didn’t even know newsgroups still existed. Good grief.

Yeah, they do. Why the good grief?

Where’d the kiddies go? Is it recess already?

Superchunky has never met a socialist he would not defend (or vote for, for that matter).

Hey superboy, try this at your high ranked liberal arts college (just for giggles): play the devils advocate and try defending anything that might even seem to be right-leaning, and see how much the compassionate open-thinker professors make you out to be a pariah.

While your at it, check into the ratio of liberal vs. conservative professors you find on campus.Then ask yourself how you could possibly have a thinking brain in that mush head of yours afterward.

ndanielson said:
A leader for which epistemological solipsism ranks as his only meaningful and apparent characteristic. But that won’t stop him, as he boldly states: Wait, you went to a public institution; you “socialist.” I, on the other hand, will graduate from a private liberal arts college: Whitman College (ranked 38th by US News & World Report. And then askes: where did OIT ranked?) Oh yes, his genius know no bounds as he asks of his liberal professors: which way to the unisex bathrooms, I forgot my period?

My college was/is better than his!

Sean68 said:
My college was/is better than his!

Puppy college is better than his, and more useful to society.

SuperChuñdy said:
What’s you obsession with Ice Cube and making sure everyone knows he’s racist anyways? It’s one thing to argue politics here; it’s another to engage in a solipsistic masturbatory session about Ice Cube.

But yeah, I’m the one who is showing his “effing ignorance.”

Quoting yourself: Like I said, you are engaging in a solipsistic masturbatory session.

Most liberal colleges will pass you just for showing up, and not being late half the time. Of course you may have to turn your cell phone off in class, but we have to give superboy the benefit of the doubt that he can at least do that. Or do we?

Sean68 said:
Whoah. Sorry. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a FUTURE graduate of the 38th best school in the country.

38th best Liberal Arts College in the whole country! Kinda like 0bama and his whole administration. Most have never worked a day in their lives outside of academia and government. So many things look good on paper. Hey chundy, are you gonna hide your transcripts from everyone if you graduate? Hey, if you are editor of the school paper, will you actually write an editorial??? 0bama made history at Harvard for being the only editor not to. Did you know that. Did you know that you may even have to have research skills at a Liberal Arts School?

Hey chundy, remedial math does not qualify as “science”, did you know that?

ndanielson said:
Behold Superchunk, on a one-boy crusade to defend the liberals against anything Fox, Rush, and anything the right is critical of government about. Grammar king and political historian, extraordinaire. Lliberal arts curriculum defender and all around denier of anything remotely right. Go superchunk, go!

Superchunk! Now your talking my language!

ndanielson said:
Oh yes, his genius know no bounds as he asks of his liberal professors: which way to the unisex bathrooms, I forgot my period?

OTI must be proud to have graduated someone as smart as you. Unisex bathrooms? Now you’re channeling <a href="http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/02/19/schafly/"Phyllis Schlafly

If you want to debate ideas, that’s fine. But if you want to throw feces at me like a misbehaving monkey then I’m out. The only thing sadder than “ndanielson” and “Sean68″‘s commentary is their warped sense of humanity: all conservatives are not evil (e.g. Chris Christie> Apparently, though, the both of you think socialism and liberalism are the same and therefore, both equally evil. Good luck with that; I hope your lives revolve around more than cupcakes and Ice Cube being a racist; otherwise, I would almost feel bad for you–almost.

Here’s to hoping the next time we encounter each other here at Mediaite it won’t turn into a feces fest. Cheers!

Chunk, check out some of these college courses offered by America’s liberal elite: http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2009/02/25/the-15-strangest-college-courses-in-america/ Did Berkeley turn you down, by the way?

Yes, Chris Christie – evil. For rebuking the liberal garbage bankrupting his state. You go, girl!

Monkeys throw feces as part of their social behavior. Here we have the academic, FKA, chunky, ascribing human traits and being critical of the monkey’s natural behavior. See how closed minded you are in even the simple things, cupcake?

Bill Maher is certainly not my cup of ‘tea’, but he does occasionally say some very insightful things amidst all the hyperbole. The Founding Fathers were exceptionally enlightened people, especially for that period of history which is why they had great foresight about creating such a workable democracy. It certainly wasn’t perfect but it was definitely progressive and these guys were not Evangelical Christians, Todays rightwing is most obviously not progressive. Also, our lack of a fair, sensible health care system is very much tied to why health levels here have fallen behind most major developed countries. It’s why many mentally sick people are falling between the cracks. Conservatives have to ask themselves why virtually all advanced governments have systems where the government is involved in one way or another. Free market medicine is unworkable because you can’t have a system that works solely on profit. Unrestrained capitalism has produced our lop-sided health care just as it has produced financial chaos. I live in New York City and in the last year or so at least 100 T&D Banks have opened branches here. Toronto & Dominion Bank was carefully regulated by the Canadian Government and has come here to pick up the pieces of our corrupted banking system. You have to give Maher some credit for at least bringing up some issues that we need to think about more clearly. One last point – why are virtually all the comedians liberal/left types? I leave you to ponder that, and please don’t bring up Dennis Miller is an utter phony and not very funny.

I think the Founding Fathers would have viewed the tea-party crowd as learning disabled. And they would have been correct.

i cant stand that moron Bill Maher, he needs to be shot. im a proud tea partier and he is just a liberal elitist

Ganymede, we live in a society that is way over regulated and full of social engineering programs run amuck. The only thing government refuses to regulate is trial lawyers.

The reason we have so many liberal/lefty comedians is because most of the “humor” is making fun of people and institutions that the audience is familiar with. Yes, the compassionate and tolerant left, actually make millions off of making fun of and twisting truth into comedy. Some people find bullying and laughing at other people’s beliefs, faults and habits entertaining. And, it really doesn’t take that much skill. Jeff Dunham is a conservative. He makes more fun of himself and his characters than anyone else, for example.

All bets are off SarahP. You cost me $700 dollars yesterday. But my friends like you quite a bit. Clown.

Paul Westlake said:
It’s also easier to believe that lightning travels from cloud to ground, but it doesn’t. ;-)

Hey Science Guy- it actually does both. Cloud-to-ground and ground-to-cloud both exist. Skimming wikipedia won’t make you informed.

SuperChuñdy said:
Superchunk! Now your talking my language! OTI must be proud to have graduated someone as smart as you. Unisex bathrooms? Now you’re channeling <a href=”http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/02/19/schafly/”Phyllis Schlafly If you want to debate ideas, that’s fine. But if you want to throw feces at me like a misbehaving monkey then I’m out. The only thing sadder than “ndanielson” and “Sean68″’s commentary is their warped sense of humanity: all conservatives are not evil (e.g. Chris Christie> Apparently, though, the both of you think socialism and liberalism are the same and therefore, both equally evil. Good luck with that; I hope your lives revolve around more than cupcakes and Ice Cube being a racist; otherwise, I would almost feel bad for you–almost. Here’s to hoping the next time we encounter each other here at Mediaite it won’t turn into a feces fest. Cheers!

My warped sense of humanity? You’re the idiot defending a guy whose ideology you know nothing about, and when I proved he wasn’t (and received no substantive argument in return, which isn’t surprising because there isn’t one available), you said who cares whether he is or isn’t. This site is callede “MEDIA” ite for a reason. I am calling into question why an avowed black racist would be allowed to make movies (aimed at children!) and TV shows and no one on the left cares at all. I can understand why paternalistic white liberals expect so little from blacks, but why blacks expect so little from themselves, I can’t understand.

Are you not disturbed that a black racist like Ice Cube is making tv shows for kids and no one seems to care?

SuperChuñdy said:
Superchunk! Now your talking my language! OTI must be proud to have graduated someone as smart as you. Unisex bathrooms? Now you’re channeling <a href=”http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/02/19/schafly/”Phyllis Schlafly If you want to debate ideas, that’s fine. But if you want to throw feces at me like a misbehaving monkey then I’m out. The only thing sadder than “ndanielson” and “Sean68″’s commentary is their warped sense of humanity: all conservatives are not evil (e.g. Chris Christie> Apparently, though, the both of you think socialism and liberalism are the same and therefore, both equally evil. Good luck with that; I hope your lives revolve around more than cupcakes and Ice Cube being a racist; otherwise, I would almost feel bad for you–almost. Here’s to hoping the next time we encounter each other here at Mediaite it won’t turn into a feces fest. Cheers!

For the record, I don;t consider socialism evil. I not support a national health care plan, but also a social welfare safety net.

Sean68 said:
For the record, I don;t consider socialism evil. I not support a national health care plan, but also a social welfare safety net.

That should read: I not only support a national healthcare plan, but also a social welfare safety net. And I have since probably before you were born.

Mark Ward said:
“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”
-John Adams, 1772

There goes another Founding Father, proclaiming his recognition of God.

Once again, Bill, I’m not seeing how the Tea Partiers are supposed to be SO opposed to the Founding Fathers!

Seems to me, YOU are more resentful of their beliefs!

The Adam’s were Anglicans.

Mark Ward said:
Franklin also said:

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”
-Benjamin Franklin, May 9, 1753

Thomas Jefferson said:
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1781

You’re right, Bill – those “radical” Founding Fathers – SO far from the views of the Tea Party and those “bitter clingers” President Obama criticized!

Ben Franklin sure liked to fornicate a lot for a religious mean.

SmartAlec said:
I demand that Congress hold hearings and pass a bill that addresses the increasing Hate-ism in this country.

We don’t hate you. We feel sorry for you.

RichS said:
Oh, and Armie just to show proof that the NAACP is a racist organization here is a quote from the site you posted: “Wilkins retired as executive director in 1977 and was replaced by Benjamin L. Hooks, whose tenure included the Bakke case (1978), in which a California court outlawed several aspects of affirmative action. At around the same time tensions between the executive director and the board of directors, tensions that had existed since the association’s founding, escalated into open hostility that threatened to weaken the organization. With the 1993 selection of Benjamin F. Chavis (now Chavis Muhammad) as director, more controversies arose. In an attempt to take the NAACP in new directions, Chavis offended many liberals by reaching out to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. After using NAACP funds to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, Chavis was forced to resign in 1995 and subsequently joined the Nation of Islam.”

Benjamin F Chavis was certainly a racist. He let the NAACP. Therefor, by the same logic that you and others have used to label the Tea Party movement as racist, the NAACP is racist. Not as racist as the Nation of Islam, or course.

Now, let us talk about you, Armie. When did you first realize that you were a racist?

What kind of idiot are you. You call Chavis a racist because he reaches out to Louis Farrakhan? Do you really think that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are less racis than Farrakhan? You have got to be kidding.

RichS said:
Its boring to repeatively list the same sorts of actions done by the Dems and libs, so I won’t. If Armie were fair he would realize them for himself. But I will ask you how many armed attacks on government officials the Tea Party has made. You realize that this was the cause of President Washington raising a militia and having them confront the Whiskey Rebels? Its intellectually dishonest of you to say the two are equivalent, but then that just means you are being consistent.

Oh, and people pay me for my opinion also, but, since I have a US Patent with me as the only inventor, I can say that my opinion is not always like yours, based on regurgitation.

You don’t list them because they do not exist. You and I both know it.

RichS said:
So you think we should punish the children for the sins of the fathers?

You should not unjust enrich the descendants of people who were criminals and thieves and impoverish the descendants of the victims of their crimes. If you receive stolen goods or wealth, even through inheritance, these goods or wealth are not rightly yours.

ndanielson said:
The reason we have so many liberal/lefty comedians is because most of the “humor” is making fun of people and institutions that the audience is familiar with.

Because that’s what SATIRE is, it’s making fun of people who have put themselves in a position of power and influence over others and calling them on their BS. Too many NON COMEDIAN NON JOURNALIST “entertainers” on the Right like Limbaugh, Beck, and Coulter get their kicks out of making fun of immigrants, the jobless, 9-11 widows and the disabled like Limbaugh making fun of Michael J. Fox. That’s not SATIRE that’s CRUELTY and it’s telling that you get off on it.

You should ask yourself why you enjoy kicking people when they are down? And why do you look the other way when those whose talking points you parrot make fun of the powerless. AGAIN, just because most of those on the Right who try to pawn off their inane ramblings as SATIRE, even though they don’t really know what satire is but do know how to cater to those who get their jollies off putting down the weak, doesn’t mean that making fun of the POWERFUL (which the CORPORATE-SPONSORED TEA PARTY is considered) is still not the role of the satirists.

You can’t have it both ways, Tea Party. You can’t claim that you and your ilk carry power and political weight and then play the victim when someone mocks you and your ilk for not having your facts straight or for being a tool of the very corporate forces you claim to despise.

Powerslave said:
What about Obama saying “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

Obama didn’t literally mean bring a gun and niether did Sarah Palin. Your argument is weak.

If you have been reading the discussions on this topic you would know I condemned that remark.

Basically the Tea Party are the reincarnation of the Religious Right but instead of hiding their willful ignorance and irrational fear behind a Bible that they never read and Jesus, who they perpetually misquote, the Tea Party hide behind a Constitution they never read and are constantly misappropriating the words of the Founding Fathers. And instead of spending all their time hating women and gays, as the Religious Right, those in the Tea Party spend an inordinate amount of time hating Muslims and Mexicans.

We’ve seen the corporate-sponsored ploys of the Tea Party before. We know all the tactics probably better than most of those in the movement know themselves. The Tea Party hiding behind the Founding Fathers to be willfully ignorant about science and suspicious about elites is as ridiculous as those in the Religious Right using Jesus to fight against abortion and homosexuality, two issues never even mentioned even though they were prevalent in his day.

The Tea Party can hide behind all the SYMBOLS you want, but it still doesn’t disguise the facts that they have nothing but retreaded failed neocon ideas on their side.

Patrick Henry said:
If anyone hates living in Texas, NY can gladly have them.

Yes, those people must LIKE having access to health care and a decent education, two things that Texas is dismal at doing.

armwood said:
You don’t list them because they do not exist. You and I both know it.

You are intellectually dishonest. No need to list the reasons, they are obvious.

Cecelia said:
He was a composer of some pretty nice ditties.

Gustav Mahler was a great composter, His 4th and 8th Symphony, Symphony of a thousand, are masterpieces in the European classical repertoire. Leonard Bernstein recorded the complete Mahler symphonies twice, once during the sixties with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra for the Columbia (now Sony Classical) label and the second cycle with the Vienna Philharmonic on Deutsche Grammophon. records I prefer the personally prefer the first cycle. I have a wonderful laser disc of the 8th from the second cycle.

There is nothing like seeing the 8th live with a great orchestra. It is truly a remarkable experience.

HAMMER77777 said:
i cant stand that moron Bill Maher, he needs to be shot. im a proud tea partier and he is just a liberal elitist

Sarah Palin must have told you to say that. You really don’t get it do you. But thanks for admitting that you’re part of the problem.

BTW, I thought the Tea Party believes deeply in upholding the Constitution. What Maher does is covered under Free Speech. What you’re doing by threatening him (like the pu$$y keyboard cowboy that you are) is not and is, in fact, a CRIME. Face it, the Tea Party wouldn’t know what’s in the Constitution and how to interpret it if it bit them in the a$$.

But thanks for proving that too many who claim to be part of the Tea Party simply aren’t adult enough to handle Democracy. Instead of exploring why you continue to support failed neocon devised policies, it must make it easier for you to blame all of your problems on the likes of Bill Maher. Oh and all Mexicans and Muslims, as well.

armwood said:
You should not unjust enrich the descendants of people who were criminals and thieves and impoverish the descendants of the victims of their crimes. If you receive stolen goods or wealth, even through inheritance, these goods or wealth are not rightly yours.

So, you are saying that even those who were serfs under the Czars should be punished because some people of their race owned slaves? You not only want to punish the children for the sins of the father but everyone in their race also. What would you call someone like that? I know, you are a racist. And you are intellectually dishonest. And, to top it all off, you feel yourself to be superior.

armwood said:
Patent

When are you going to tell the Kennedy’s to give all of that boot-legging money back?

ndanielson said:
Monkeys throw feces as part of their social behavior. Here we have the academic, FKA, chunky, ascribing human traits and being critical of the monkey’s natural behavior.

Gee, someone’s been listening to a lot of Glenn Beck this week. Sorry, it ain’t feces flinging to call out the scientifically illiterate elite-fearing Tea Party for knowing next to nothing about what the Founding Fathers were really all about and not what Glenn Beck has told them they are all about. Glenn Beck doesn’t know anymore about Thomas Paine than he does about Edward Bernays.

Beck’s MO is to do precisely 5 minutes of research on any given topic which is precisely 5 more minutes than his intellectually lazy audience will ever do and the try to pawn those selective findings off as highly researched facts. But then when someone who has done say SIX MINUTES of research or are actually experts in the topic hear what he has to say, they immediately dismiss it as the BS that it is. Just because you’re too lazy to do the 6 minutes of research doesn’t mean that Maher is wrong. So, I implore you to, instead of dismiss those who have their facts straight, to DO THE SIX MINUTES. It’s the least you can do.

Sorry people, you need to realize that listening to Glenn Beck for an hour each day or reading the Right Wing blogs that parrot him are no substitute for not paying attention in your history and social studies classes.

Kird said:
Here’s an interesting article from a conservative source written this past June:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/two-faces-tea-party

This is an interesting article excepting it omits any mention of the racist elements that have been associated with the Tea Party. Ignoring a problem is not dealing with it. The article does deal accurately I believe with Beck’s conspiracy laded, world view.
___________________________________________________________________
““Socialism and fascism,” the author writes in Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, “have been on the rise for two administrations now.” Beck’s book Arguing with Idiots contains a list of the “Top Ten Bastards of All Time,” on which Pol Pot (No. 10), Adolf Hitler (No. 6), and Pontius Pilate (No. 4) all rank lower than FDR (No. 3) and Woodrow Wilson (No. 1). In Glenn Beck’s Common Sense Beck writes, “With a few notable exceptions, our political leaders have become nothing more than parasites who feed off our sweat and blood.”

This is nonsense. Whatever you think of Theodore Roosevelt, he was not Lenin. Woodrow Wilson was not Stalin. The philosophical foundations of progressivism may be wrong. The policies that progressivism generates may be counterproductive. Its view of the Constitution may betray the Founders’. Nevertheless, progressivism is a distinctly American tradition that partly came into being as a way to prevent ideologies like communism and fascism from taking root in the United States. And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly.

Read and watch enough Glenn Beck, and you realize that he is not only introducing new authors and ideas into public life, he is reintroducing old ideas. Some very old ideas. The notion that America’s leaders are indistinguishable from America’s enemies has a long and sorry history. In the 1950s it led Robert Welch, the head of the John Birch Society, to proclaim that President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer. For this, William F. Buckley Jr. famously denounced Welch and severed the Birchers’ ties to mainstream conservatism. The group was ostracized for decades.

But not everyone denounced Welch. One author, the Mormon autodidact W. Cleon Skousen, continued to support the Birchers as he penned books on politics and the American founding. And Skousen continued to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that American political, social, and economic elites were working with the Communists to foist a world government on the United States.

Glenn Beck is a Skousenite. During the “We Surround Them” program, he urged his audience to read Skousen’s 5000 Year Leap (1981), for which he has written a foreword, and The Real George Washington (1991). “The 5000 Year Leap is essential to understanding why our Founders built this Republic the way they did,” the author writes in Glenn Beck’s Common Sense. More controversially, Beck has recommended Skousen’s Naked Communist (1958) and Naked Capitalist (1970), which lay out the writer’s paranoid scenarios in detail. The latter book, for example, draws on Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope (1966), which argues that the history of the 20th century is the product of secret societies in conflict. “Carroll Quigley laid open the plan in Tragedy and Hope,” says a character in Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window. “The only hope to avoid the tragedy of war was to bind together the economies of the world to foster global stability and peace.”

For Beck, conspiracy theories are not aberrations. They are central to his worldview. They are the natural consequence of assuming that the world hangs by a thread, and that everyone is out to get you.”
_________________________________________________________________
As I have said many times on this blog true intellectual conservatives have no use for the likes of Beck and Limbaugh. This article clearly illustrates and confirms that point.

RichS said:
When are you going to tell the Kennedy’s to give all of that boot-legging money back?

Just after you tell the Bush’s to give back all that Nazi money and the Koch brothers that sponsor much of the Tea Party and their rhetoric to give back their Stalin money. Which basically means that STALIN is funding the Tea Party. Ironic, ain’t it.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

xtranormal said:
Hello

I am here to debate politics with you .

You have to be informed to have an intelligent debate. You cannot debate what you are not familiar with, though many here try to do that. Reading fosters informed debate.

cjd ohio 1 said:
fine a liberal organization, but not a civil rights organization because if you only defend one with your point of view, you cant be both

That was an incredibly ridiculous statement. I can’t believe you meant to say that.

Definitions of NAACP on the Web:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, usually abbreviated as NAACP and pronounced N-double-A-C-P, is one of the oldest and most influential civil rights organizations in the United States Its mission is “to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:NAACP&sa=X&ei=t0oyTei5I4P68AaImIHRCA&ved=0CB4QkAE

Welcome to The NAACP

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. From the ballot box to the classroom, the thousands of dedicated workers, organizers, leaders and members who make up the NAACP continue to fight for social justice for all Americans.
http://www.naacp.org/content/main/

THE NAACP’s LEGAL STRATEGY AGAINST SEGREGATED EDUCATION, 1925-1950

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/tushnet605.htm

You have a right to your own opinion but you don’t have a right to make of facts or make unchallenged, clearly false statements.

ndanielson said:
Only the Founders did not despise the Bible, and had a reverence for God. In fact, EVERY single State Constitution in the Union has a reference to God within the first paragraph. And liberals slobber to make this 5″-nothing clown filthy rich.

And that’s why Thomas Jefferson rewrote parts of the New Testament to take out the supernatural passages! OK.

ganymede said:
The Founding Fathers were exceptionally enlightened people, especially for that period of history which is why they had great foresight about creating such a workable democracy. It certainly wasn’t perfect but it was definitely progressive and these guys were not Evangelical Christians, Todays rightwing is most obviously not progressive. Also, our lack of a fair, sensible health care system is very much tied to why health levels here have fallen behind most major developed countries. It’s why many mentally sick people are falling between the cracks.

Time to repeat this.

The word war/confusion is a mess.

The Founders were “liberals” when “liberal” meant what “libertarian” means today.

Most “liberals” by today’s definition are STATISTS, meaning they favor the state over the individual, as Fascists and Socialists and Communists do. Progressives are STATISTS as well.

‘Conservative’ is a dumb term just like progressive. Literally, each describes that they are for maintaining the old or bringing the new. Without regard to what the old and new are. A conservative in communist Russia in 1988 means what? A progressive at the same time would be tearing down the wall and trying to establish freedom and private property.

Libertarian and Statist are the most useful terms. Eash says clearly what it stands for.

ganymede said:
Conservatives have to ask themselves why virtually all advanced governments have systems where the government is involved in one way or another. Free market medicine is unworkable because you can’t have a system that works solely on profit. Unrestrained capitalism has produced our lop-sided health care just as it has produced financial chaos.

Setting the modern language mess aside, consider this. Why has no affluent empire ever survived to this day, other than the recent ones? They go bankrupt and collapse. As we are doing. The illusion that something is working in our increasingly socialist system is the illusion of the delay of collapse that debt affords. Those who are foolish to judge how things are going by the living standards of the time are doomed. Life feels very rich while you are running up debt on a credit card. And it feels poor while you scrimp to eke out a living and pay it off. But the destructive behavior is the one from the time of fool’s affluence, while the time when wealth was truly accumulated was the time of austerity.

If you think the trennd of the modern, richer states is a recipe for success, the coming collapse of our empire will surprise you. This will be good, at least in the fact that you probably won’t own a gun. Smart people will.

SuperChuñdy said:
But the real question is does the federal constitution have any reference to “God” in it? Nope.

As professor of American history Jill Lepore wrote, “Forty-four hundred words and ‘God’ is not one of them, as Benjamin Rush complained to John Adams, hoping for an emendation: ‘Perhaps an acknowledgement [sic] might be made of his goodness or of his providence in the proposed amendments.’ It was not.”

That’s not to say the Founding Fathers (a term not coined until the 20th century) were not religious, indeed they were. However, today we would probably not find them at an evangelical church with the rest of the Tea Baggers.

Also, state constitutions are quaint and anachronistic things: South Carolina had a clause in its constitution that office holders had to believe in a Supreme Being, which was rule as unconstitutional.

Also I didn’t know Maher was 5 inches tall or that being “filthy rich” was a bad thing; are you some kind of socialist that begrudges other people’s wealth?

So true, but some, like Jefferson and Franklin were not religious at all. Franklin was a libertine in practice.

Just_MC said:
The word war/confusion is a mess.

The Founders were “liberals” when “liberal” meant what “libertarian” means today.

Most “liberals” by today’s definition are STATISTS, meaning they favor the state over the individual, as Fascists and Socialists and Communists do. Progressives are STATISTS as well.

‘Conservative’ is a dumb term just like progressive. Literally, each describes that they are for maintaining the old or bringing the new. Without regard to what the old and new are. A conservative in communist Russia in 1988 means what? A progressive at the same time would be tearing down the wall and trying to establish freedom and private property.

Libertarian and Statist are the most useful terms. Eash says clearly what it stands for.

Liberalism

Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

armwood said:
So true, but some, like Jefferson and Franklin were not religious at all. Franklin was a libertine in practice.

“Say nothing of my religion. It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.”

Just_MC said:
Of ALL the people in America today, the ones the Founders would like best are the libertarians at the core of the Tea Party movement. These people ACTIVELY stand for the rights of the individual over the state. They stand for non-interventionist foreign policy. They stand for the letter of the Constitution. All things the Founders fought and died for.

Quite frankly the founding fathers were not the greatest role models in the world. Some like Hamilton and Adams were better but they included slave holders, child molesters and libertines. They are dead. Let them rest in peace.

Armwood, when are you going to prove your charges that I made “racist”, “anti-Hispanic” and “white supremacist” statements on this thread:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

ndanielson said:
38th best Liberal Arts College in the whole country! Kinda like 0bama and his whole administration. Most have never worked a day in their lives outside of academia and government. So many things look good on paper. Hey chundy, are you gonna hide your transcripts from everyone if you graduate? Hey, if you are editor of the school paper, will you actually write an editorial??? 0bama made history at Harvard for being the only editor not to. Did you know that. Did you know that you may even have to have research skills at a Liberal Arts School?

The ignorance of some people on this list is truly startling.

In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html

I love this guy is so sharp and funny. hahahaha

Bill Maher is a RACIST;

Said he wanted Obama to be a “gangsta”.

African-American makes a great video about Maher’s racist stupidity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8MANpbg_3w

armwood said:
but they included slave holders, child molesters and libertines.

I suppose had we talked about Ms. Hernandez another hour or so. You would have eventually gotten around to calling me all those things.

Why don’t you Reich Wing crybabies go to a site that is more to your liking? Logging in somewhere just to bitch about the content is really kind of sad. Does your dog pout, too?

modans1955 said:
Does your dog pout, too?

No, he can’t read “the content”…

armwood said:
You have to be informed to have an intelligent debate. You cannot debate what you are not familiar with, though many here try to do that. Reading fosters informed debate.

Hello

I am here to debate poitics with you .

Barack Obama is great.

Hope and Change .

Yes we can .

A while back Anderson Cooper of CNN confronted someone for all the hatred in Pima County TOWARDS Sheriff Arpaio,and it wasn’t the Tea Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwnW_YyR510&feature=player_embedded

…and watch what they do.

What is true is that our Founding Fathers would have pinched Maher’s head off the moment he was born.

I just read that the Town Hall meeting was organized to bring victims of the Arizona shooting and eye-witnesses together.

Tea Party demands Tennessee school curriculum erase minority experience

by Joan McCarter

Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 05:30:05 PM PST

The Tea Party war on the 20th century continues in Tennessee, where yesterday a group of teabaggers presented the state legislature a list of demands for the new legislative session. Their aim is “to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

What “truth” do these conservative activists demand be taught? Apparently it doesn’t involve portrayals of the “minority experience” or anything else that might taint their mythical hagiographies of the Founding Fathers. At a press conference, the activists said they want a focus on the “progress” the Founders and “the majority of citizens” made, to the exclusion of supposedly “made-up criticism” about slavery and the treatment of Native Americans:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/15/936339/-Tea-Party-demands-Tennessee-school-curriculum-erase-minority-experience?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailykos/index+(Daily+Kos)

More current Tea Party racism

armwood said:
Tea Party demands Tennessee school curriculum erase minority experience

by Joan McCarter

Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 05:30:05 PM PST

The Tea Party war on the 20th century continues in Tennessee, where yesterday a group of teabaggers presented the state legislature a list of demands for the new legislative session. Their aim is “to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

What “truth” do these conservative activists demand be taught? Apparently it doesn’t involve portrayals of the “minority experience” or anything else that might taint their mythical hagiographies of the Founding Fathers. At a press conference, the activists said they want a focus on the “progress” the Founders and “the majority of citizens” made, to the exclusion of supposedly “made-up criticism” about slavery and the treatment of Native Americans:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/15/936339/-Tea-Party-demands-Tennessee-school-curriculum-erase-minority-experience?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailykos/index+(Daily+Kos)

More current Tea Party racism

Poor aggrieved armwood. Still at it, clown? Welcome to America. Home of the free. Dummy.

Hey armwood, name as many countries as you can that did not practice slavery. Name the African country that still does to this day. How many Arab countries still practice slavery? How many Arab countries treat women like chattel to this day? Which party created the KKK? Which party supported your Jim Crow laws? Dummy. At least in America, you are still free to be a dummy. How’s that 7/8ths chip on your shoulder doing? Dummy. Who sold black slaves in Africa to slave runners? Dummy.

The founding fathers would have hung a traitor like Socialist Bill……right where they hung their Tea Party Flags!!!!! Idiot loon!!!!!!

Why does 0bama hide his transcripts and admission records? Affirmative action? Lying? Why is he not proud of his transcripts? Ask Kim to do 6 minutes of research. And while she’s at it ask her which party the CPUSA supports. Dummy.

Hey armwood how many white soldier fought in the civil war. How many died to end slavery. What party did Lincoln belong to? Dummy. The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP). The party’s platform generally reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum and is considered center-right, in contrast to the more liberal-leaning Democrats. Wake up, dummy.

armwood do you ever see yourself as racist? Who is more racist, people of color or white people? Dummy.

armwood, of the 50 states, which State Constitution does not have a reference to God in the FIRST sentence?
Besides Jefferson, which other founding father did not support the Bible? Does EACH AND EVERY State Constitution have a reference to GOD IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, YES OR NO? Does the US Constitution say ANYTHING at all about a separation between church and state?

Like Bill Maher ever gave any serious study of our founding principles, you know things like natural law, human nature etc. Formulating a new governmental system that recognized and protected our people’s basic rights but understanding the dangers they saw in Europe and England they just won independence from.

It’s a good sign to see people rediscovering these truths after so many generations of history revisionism and intentional dumbing down the American people, most of the problems we have today are because the founders warnings were not heeded. Today’s tea party movement is a true grassroots occurrence not like the phony baloney Astroturfing the Socialist left utilizes. A large portion of the American people have woken up as we’ve seen the results of this in the last election and we’ve only just begun this is not about Republican and Democrat because both parties are responsible for driving us off the road and into the swamp constitutionally speaking.

It is not written in stone that the United States of America cannot fail! Too many people have taken things for granted or have swallowed the lie that government solves problems. I like to see BM take a quiz regarding the founding fathers and their philosophies, you can tell by the way he talks he really doesn’t have a clue. And as to Bill’s statement I think according to their writings our founding fathers would view the grassroots tea party as a very good sign but we can only pray it’s not too late.

“Government is about coercion. Limiting government is the single most important instrument for guaranteeing liberty. We’re working on a third generation which has little in the way of education about what our Constitution means and why it was written. Thus, we’ve fallen easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers.” — Dr. Walter Williams

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson

armwood said:
The Tea Party war on the 20th century continues in Tennessee, where yesterday a group of teabaggers presented the state legislature a list of demands for the new legislative session. Their aim is “to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”
What “truth” do these conservative activists demand be taught? Apparently it doesn’t involve portrayals of the “minority experience” or anything else that might taint their mythical hagiographies of the Founding Fathers. At a press conference, the activists said they want a focus on the “progress” the Founders and “the majority of citizens” made, to the exclusion of supposedly “made-up criticism” about slavery and the treatment of Native Americans:

I don’t care .

I want the Hope , and the change .

armwood, which Founders wrote extensively about the separation of powers and warned against judicial tyranny? Which branch of government did the founders adamantly believe held sway in the “separation of powers”? What do you know about the 17th Amendment, and how America went wrong in adopting it? Can it be reversed without an amendment process? Hint: what is equal suffrage of the States? Hint: look at Utah. Will you ever not be racist?

PC Kryptonite said:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson

armwood make this your motto.

armwood, If America is great, why do liberals want to “fundamentally” change it?

armwood, bonus question: did Jaime Jaimie Goerelich put up a wall between the CIA and the FBI to cover for Clinton’s BJ’s or rape charges? How, much did Franklin Raines and Jaimie Goerelich pocket from running Fannie and Freddie into the ground?

armwood, if we are the teabaggers, who are the teabagees?

I have to disagree with Maher on this. I believe the Founding Fathers would have seen kindred spirits in the Tea Party. I don’t claim to be a member of the Tea Party, but I know that a big part of the Tea Party ideas have to do with what they believe is over taxation and government interference. That is at the core of why they call themselves the Tea Party… and it is at the core of why the original “Tea Party” took place.

I do have to question Maher’s motives in what he said, and didn’t say. His whole piece seemed aimed at inflaming Tea Party members than an honest analysis.

armwood said:
Just_MC

Nothing would suit you more than ignoring the Founders, as our founding principles get in the way of your agenda.

“Let them rest in peace.” Idiot. Figures you would be a Hamilton fan, as he was the serious crook in the group who wanted to be King here. You are a useful barometer though, like the opposite of the World Cup octopus.

ndanielson said:
Hey armwood, name as many countries as you can that did not practice slavery. Name the African country that still does to this day. How many Arab countries still practice slavery? How many Arab countries treat women like chattel to this day? Which party created the KKK? Which party supported your Jim Crow laws? Dummy. At least in America, you are still free to be a dummy. How’s that 7/8ths chip on your shoulder doing? Dummy. Who sold black slaves in Africa to slave runners? Dummy.

Chattel slavery idiot, was unique to Euro-American barbarism. No culture in recorded history treated its slaves as sub-human animals and breed them like dogs and used them as they would farm animals, systematically destroyed their culture and families and systematically kidnapped, raped generations of women, and molested their children. Learn something about American history before you address me again.

If you actually read a little bit you would know that the murderous Euro-American slave trade and slave system created the largest human, trans-generational holocaust in human history.

What does political parties have to do with this? This was part of a barbaric culture. This began in 1619, long before political parties had developed, long before the United States was even formed. The legal system perpetuating this evil system began to be unraveled in 1865 and was not fully unraveled until 1965.

What law school did you graduate from, none so don’t question me questions about the constitution. Obviously you did not even go to a top tier undergraduate school, let alone a major graduate or professional school.

Put doen your beer can, pick up the other ones scattered on the floor, put them in the garbage can and go to bed and sleep it off.

armwood said:
What “truth” do these conservative activists demand be taught? Apparently it doesn’t involve portrayals of the “minority experience” or anything else that might taint their mythical hagiographies of the Founding Fathers

Armwood, I think we should teach our children a balanced picture of history. By balanced I mean that a majority of the time is spent on a majority of the history, and a proportionally correct part of the time is spent on the minority experence. After all if you “painted everyon blue” and spent an equal amount of time on everyone, that’s what you would get. Also I have seen history books that read like the main factor of history was the “minority experence” We cheat our children when we don’t give them an overview of the history of our country.

armwood said:
Chattel slavery idiot, was unique to Euro-American barbarism. No culture in recorded history treated its slaves as sub-human animals and breed them like dogs and used them as they would farm animals, systematically destroyed their culture and families and systematically kidnapped, raped generations of women, and molested their children. Learn something about American history before you address me again.
If you actually read a little bit you would know that the murderous Euro-American slave trade and slave system created the largest human, trans-generational holocaust in human history.
What does political parties have to do with this? This was part of a barbaric culture. This began in 1619, long before political parties had developed, long before the United States was even formed. The legal system perpetuating this evil system began to be unraveled in 1865 and was not fully unraveled until 1965.
What law school did you graduate from, none so don’t question me questions about the constitution. Obviously you did not even go to a top tier undergraduate school, let alone a major graduate or professional school.
Put doen your beer can, pick up the other ones scattered on the floor, put them in the garbage can and go to bed and sleep it off.

I don’t care.

Obamas tears cure cancer.

Mr B said:
homenin

Glenn Beck is a full of regurgitated bullshit, fed to him by his puppet masters. Brilliant, my ass, he is nothing short of hysterical lunatic. His ramblings don’t even hold up to cursory examination by anyone how passed high school American history.

armwood said:
Chattel slavery idiot, was unique to Euro-American barbarism. No culture in recorded history treated its slaves as sub-human animals and breed them like dogs and used them as they would farm animals, systematically destroyed their culture and families and systematically kidnapped, raped generations of women, and molested their children. Learn something about American history before you address me again.

If you actually read a little bit you would know that the murderous Euro-American slave trade and slave system created the largest human, trans-generational holocaust in human history.

What does political parties have to do with this? This was part of a barbaric culture. This began in 1619, long before political parties had developed, long before the United States was even formed. The legal system perpetuating this evil system began to be unraveled in 1865 and was not fully unraveled until 1965.

What law school did you graduate from, none so don’t question me questions about the constitution. Obviously you did not even go to a top tier undergraduate school, let alone a major graduate or professional school.

Put doen your beer can, pick up the other ones scattered on the floor, put them in the garbage can and go to bed and sleep it off.

And the Myan’s didn’t enslave and cut the hearts out of indigenous people? Wow, tell me more. Another great armwood non-answer complete with the usual obfuscation, accusatory tone and racially tinged diatribe. Exactly what I and everyone else has come to expect.

Can people of color be racist? Who in you opinion is more racist, people of color or whites? Dummy.

armwood, when white slave owners bought slaves in Africa, who sold them to white traders. little green people??? And did that have a detrimental effect on their entire subculture?

armwood: racist much?

I would like some solid credible evidence of where the TEA Party came up with their constitutional founding fathers stranglehold.

I’m aware of Ron Paul and End the Fed, but how did the TEA Party come up with their “identity.” Is there a credible documentary out there? I will search for it now myself but if somebody has something, please share it with me.

armwood are you teaching your children to hate whitey? Is your wife as proud or more proud of America than Michelle 0bama? Are your children proud of America?

Fact: Armwood is a liberal as is Bill Mahar and they were taught these wrong things thru their backgrounds and thanks to Texas board of Education future children will not be blindly indoctrinated to a liberal mindset. Here is a good article of changes made to text books.
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=23852

Nacho said:
I would like some solid credible evidence of where the TEA Party came up with their constitutional founding fathers stranglehold.

I’m aware of Ron Paul and End the Fed, but how did the TEA Party come up with their “identity.” Is there a credible documentary out there? I will search for it now myself but if somebody has something, please share it with me.

The TEA Party came from Ron Paul End the Fed rallies back during the Bush years. You really did answer your own question.. Up until well after Obama had been inaugurated, it remained a fairly underground movement of End the Fed Ron Paul supporters, the remnant of classical liberals, libertarians, anti-war/anti-police state activists, and other such folks. At some point, Fox News saw a rising movement and couldn’t resist capitalizing on it (no doubt to try to herd them back into the left-right paradigm, rather than contuning on the populist socio-political-economic basis it was furthering). They appointed (wrongly) Sarah Palin as some sort of leader even though she had no history of being libertarian or even particularly conservative( McCain is not even a conservative), and the former neocon Glen Beck (who used to say that Ron Paul supporters should be taken out by the US Military for “working with al quaeda” changed his rhetoric as well).

Since then, Fox News has helped to publicize the movement, but largely has failed to co-opt it (other than a fringe which the media attempts to latch on to for dear life/propaganda purposes). It’s far from perfect, but generally the message is still a positive one. My largest gripe is that some of the anti-war crowd has been drowned out within it, which doesn’t make sense. War is the health of the state. War is what creates big government and high taxes. If you are really into small government, you HAVE TO be anti-war in order to escape being a total hypocrite.

I think what people need to realize is that the Tea Parties started before Obama even got elected, as a rebellion against Bush. They only continued with Obama because he has done more of the same spending madness, growing government, etc. . . Because it doesn’t fit into the box of “the religious right vs. the socialist left” paradigm, the establishment doesn’t like it (which is why top Republicans have tried to stop it just as much as top Democrats)

I think that Bill Maher is quite disingenuous with his slander of anyone he deems “a teabagger”. He is childish, ignorant and rude. He out-derps even the biggest derp kings and queens on the fanatical religious right that he makes fun of. The fact that he believes that ALL of the Founding Fathers were of one persuasion or another shows his utter ignorance. There were a number of people from different points of view who could fit that bill. It is utterly stupid that he picks Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson as those he believes would have agreed with him on much of anything. It is true that both were non-superstitious deists, men of science, well read in philosophy, history, classical literature, economics, etc. . . but they would have seen Mahers blatant statism as a contradiction to everything they stood for.

If you read much of Paine or Jefferson, it is exactly the sort of thing that people such as Maher ridicule. For example, Jefferson was virtually an anarchist in his political philosophy. He viewed government as one of the most evil entities to exist, and sought to as best he could restrain it to the point of it almost being inept. Jefferson was the originator of State Nullification of Federal law, and was staunchly anti-Europe, against the pro-Europe statists such as Alexander Hamilton who wanted to reunite with the British Empire or at least bring in an unelected Monarchy back home. The other bits that Maher overlooks are both Thomases were against taxation as well.

I also guess that Maher forgets that Paine’s brilliant abolitionist pamphlet called “African Slavery in America” argues for the abolition of slavery purely on Christian moral grounds.

I’m not a religious person, but people like Maher make my skin crawl. He tries to twist history to fit his narrow minded view of the world, as if liberal in those days had anything to do with what is called “liberal” these days.

Maher is a worshipper of government. The Founding Fathers were not, which is why they incited a Revolution.

ndanielson said:
And the Myan’s didn’t enslave and cut the hearts out of indigenous people? Wow, tell me more. Another great armwood non-answer complete with the usual obfuscation, accusatory tone and racially tinged diatribe. Exactly what I and everyone else has come to expect.

Can people of color be racist? Who in you opinion is more racist, people of color or whites? Dummy.

Yup. Barbarism is present in most cultures, if not all. The pattern is also present that it is usually the social or political “elect” of society that tend to propagate barbarism. The criminals, psychopaths and con artists all have a tendency to “rise to the top”, regardless of what nationality, race, or religion is involved. It’s just a part of the human condition, which is why natural law is so important. We’ve got to protect our individual rights from being infringed by these folks, whether they’re trying to “cut our hearts out” or “tell us how we ought to live our lives”.

And, it truly pains me to say that some of the most racist people I’ve ever met were people of color. I wish that wasn’t so.

ROCKSTEADY said:
He’s still right.

Most of the facts are correct, but the insinuations and conclusions are mostly false.

The founding fathers, for the most part, probably would have preferred the Tea Party to statist hacks like Maher, even if they didn’t agree with all of their ideas.

It is mostly a hoax played by the media that anyone who believes in the principles of limited government and liberty are “backwoods religious rednecks”. In fact, quite a lot of libertarians are atheists and hardcore skeptics, although not all of course.

Where Maher is dead wrong, is that he uses men who largely hated the institution of government, opposed taxation, and fought for the idea of decentralized liberty vs. a strong centralized nanny state, and tries to pretend that they would have seen eye to eye with his political position of endless government power. It is likely they would have chuckled about the religious fanatics, but would have ACTUALLY seen people like Maher as a hostility, and an actual threat.

This story reminds me of the one published by Raw Story yesterday, claiming that Martin Luther King Jr would have been for the Iraq and Afghan wars. It’s quite a low thing to try to twist the viewpoints of dead men who are not here to defend themselves, to fit your loony view of the world.

How about we all read some Thomas Jefferson writings or Thomas Paine writings, and actually see if Maher is the sort of guy they would have liked.

ndanielson said:
And the Myan’s didn’t enslave and cut the hearts out of indigenous people? Wow, tell me more. Another great armwood non-answer complete with the usual obfuscation, accusatory tone and racially tinged diatribe. Exactly what I and everyone else has come to expect.

Can people of color be racist? Who in you opinion is more racist, people of color or whites? Dummy.

Europeans put slaves neck deep in sand on beaches, put honey on their faces and let the insects eat hem them to death. Barbarism is everywhere. What you are avoiding is that the Euro-American slave trade and its aftermath was the largest human trans generational holocaust in human history. This is undeniable. You fruitless attempt to justify this barbarism by saying other people do similar things is nothing but an in artful dodge. We are talking about the United States and its founding fathers. No other example you can name involved over ten million deaths and over 300 years of brutalization.

RichS said:
So, you are saying that even those who were serfs under the Czars should be punished because some people of their race owned slaves? You not only want to punish the children for the sins of the father but everyone in their race also. What would you call someone like that? I know, you are a racist. And you are intellectually dishonest. And, to top it all off, you feel yourself to be superior.

I have never used the word punishment. What I am saying is that they have benefited from white privilege at the expense of blacks when they arrived in America. Just like the German soldier who my father fought under the American flag could emigrate to America and buy a house where my father could not buy one and get a job, with less qualifications than by father because of white privilege. The damage of this intentional tort demands a remedy. Those who unjustly were enriched should pay.

RabbleRouserJr said:
Where Maher is dead wrong, is that he uses men who largely hated the institution of government, opposed taxation, and fought for the idea of decentralized liberty vs. a strong centralized nanny state, and tries to pretend that they would have seen eye to eye with his political position of endless government power. It is likely they would have chuckled about the religious fanatics, but would have ACTUALLY seen people like Maher as a hostility, and an actual threat.

RabbleRouserJr said:
It’s quite a low thing to try to twist the viewpoints of dead men who are not here to defend themselves, to fit your loony view of the world.

Although I mostly agree with you, most of the founders were “religious fanatics” themselves as they held deep Christian faith. In fact, most agreed (in writings to each other) that governments first priority should be to Almighty God. Of course, they DID avoid the problems England suffered by preventing our federal government from establishing an official religion. But they also guaranteed the “free exercise thereof,” and several of the original states actually had official state religions.

So, no, I don’t think our founders would have “chuckled about the religious fanatics,” but I do agree that they would have seen Maher, and all modern Liberalism as the antithesis of the vision they shared at our founding. Maher can make statements as outrageous as this one, because he knows the Liberal base generally has never read the Constitution and will simply nod and repeat the lies rather than educate themselves.

Davo said:
Although I mostly agree with you, most of the founders were “religious fanatics” themselves as they held deep Christian faith. In fact, most agreed (in writings to each other) that governments first priority should be to Almighty God. Of course, they DID avoid the problems England suffered by preventing our federal government from establishing an official religion. But they also guaranteed the “free exercise thereof,” and several of the original states actually had official state religions.

So, no, I don’t think our founders would have “chuckled about the religious fanatics,” but I do agree that they would have seen Maher, and all modern Liberalism as the antithesis of the vision they shared at our founding. Maher can make statements as outrageous as this one, because he knows the Liberal base generally has never read the Constitution and will simply nod and repeat the lies rather than educate themselves.

Where is your documentation that “most of the founding fathers were religious fanatics”? The historical evidence is just the opposite. They were at best superficially religious. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not religious. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Anglicans (now in America we call them Episcopalians) Madison was a Presbyterians. Ben Franklin was only nominally a Christian. None of these were fanatics or even evangelicals. The evangelicals movement had not even begun at this period of time. That movement was a 19th Century movement.

armwood said:
The historical evidence is just the opposite. They were at best superficially religious. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not religious.

“Historical evidence” is only relevant to you and other academites who’ve never experienced the world outside your institutions. Re-writes of historical truth don’t count as “historical evidence.” What DOES count are the diaries and other writings of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson by their own hand. Thomas Paine was the only non-mainstream “diest’ on record, although your re-writers of history have tried since the mid-20th century to pervert the facts in order to ‘justify the unjust’ and ‘legitimize the illegitimate.’

Come out of the darkness and into the light. Try reading something other than anti-America propaganda of hate.

Davo said:
“Historical evidence” is only relevant to you and other academites who’ve never experienced the world outside your institutions. Re-writes of historical truth don’t count as “historical evidence.” What DOES count are the diaries and other writings of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson by their own hand. Thomas Paine was the only non-mainstream “diest’ on record, although your re-writers of history have tried since the mid-20th century to pervert the facts in order to ‘justify the unjust’ and ‘legitimize the illegitimate.’

Come out of the darkness and into the light. Try reading something other than anti-America propaganda of hate.

OK, fair enough. You then need to read the Jefferson Bible, written as you say by his own hand

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Thomas Jefferson’s own writing totally contradicts your claim. This is for starters.

armwood said:
Thomas Jefferson’s own writing totally contradicts your claim.

I don’t think so. Here, in fact, is some of Jefferson’s own thoughts prior to re-writes by the anti-American Left:

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

There’s much more. In fact, I just finished a rather thick biography of Washington, complete with prints from pages of his diary. Need a taste? Like I said, step out of the darkness of Liberal academia and check into some reality for a change. It’ll do ya’ good.

And here, armwood, is Thomas Jefferson’s list of governments purposes. Pay particular attention to purpose number 1 ……………….

in his inaugural speech, Jefferson said the purpose of government is 5 fold:
The government should…

1. Acknowledge and adore God,
2. Exercise frugality,
3. Restrain the infliction of injury (i.e. keep people safe, keep criminals away,)
4. Encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise, and
5. Protect property, earnings of citizens.

Hey, ya know what? Ol’ Jefferson kinda reminds me why I insist that Liberalism is anti-American. Happy research, armwood. Enlightenment is a wonderful thing…………

Here’s another snippet from before the war:

“With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves.” –John Dickinson & Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775

Wow, armwood, thanks for reminding me of these references to religion and liberty by Jefferson, Washington, and other founders. Kinda cuts right through the facade of Liberalism being somehow “justified,” eh?

Davo said:
And here, armwood, is Thomas Jefferson’s list of governments purposes. Pay particular attention to purpose number 1 ……………….

in his inaugural speech, Jefferson said the purpose of government is 5 fold:
The government should…

1. Acknowledge and adore God,
2. Exercise frugality,
3. Restrain the infliction of injury (i.e. keep people safe, keep criminals away,)
4. Encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise, and
5. Protect property, earnings of citizens.

Hey, ya know what? Ol’ Jefferson kinda reminds me why I insist that Liberalism is anti-American. Happy research, armwood. Enlightenment is a wonderful thing…………

Jefferson was a Deist. He did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the two fundamental principles of Christianity. Read the Jefferson Bible. I postet your link above. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

he had quailities of both

armwood said:
Jefferson was a Deist. He did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the two fundamental principles of Christianity. Read the Jefferson Bible. I postet your link above. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Did Davo say something about Jesus, armwood? That’s a pretty vitriolic argument against something that wasn’t said.

armwood said:
The evangelicals movement had not even begun at this period of time. That movement was a 19th Century movement.

The Great Awakening? Never happened.

armwood said:
Euro-American slave trade and its aftermath was the largest human trans generational holocaust in human history.

Tell that to the Incas.

Pablo said:
Did Davo say something about Jesus, armwood? That’s a pretty vitriolic argument against something that wasn’t said.

Actually I did, Pablo. I provided quotes from one of Jefferson’s letters, complete with date and recipient for armwood to ignore. He did so with great conspicuousness.

armwood said:
You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I’d be DELIGHTED to hear what you feel are the facts behind your charge as to how I made “racist”, “anti-hispanic”, and “white supremacist” statements, on this thread:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

So far, I’ve merely received the charges sans ANY explanation at all and even which comments you found racist.

For a guy who can fill a blogboard with rambling ruminations, your inability to back up your charges with even ONE comment, says it all.

@Davo, pablo, ndanielson, etc – You cannot compete with armwood. Why? Because you haven’t read MalcomX and armwood’s other suggested Indoctrination Writings, and you haven’t been told by your father to educate the white man to his shortcomings. Once you have these under your belt, or pounded into your head, you might be able to compete with his unmatched intelligence.

Davo said:
Actually I did, Pablo. I provided quotes from one of Jefferson’s letters, complete with date and recipient for armwood to ignore. He did so with great conspicuousness.

Ignore you. This guy pronounced me guilty of WHITE SUPREMACY, RACISM, and ANTI-HISPANIC thinking, for nothing more than my suggesting that a Hispanic NPR commentator inappropriately used the tragedy in Arizona to mischaracterize the positions of people supporting border control!

Pablo said:
Tell that to the Incas.

Davo said:
Actually I did, Pablo. I provided quotes from one of Jefferson’s letters, complete with date and recipient for armwood to ignore. He did so with great conspicuousness.

There is a difference between a diest who believes in God and being a Christian. Conservatives conflate the two concepts when calling America a Christian nation and calling the founding fathers all Christian. Some were Christians, some were not.

I know you do not respect academic inquiry, you indicated that in an earlier post but actual research and evidence matter.

How Christian Were the Founders?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Our founding Fathers Were Not Christian

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#Jefferson

Bill Maher is irreverent irrelevant irresponsible irritating and ignorant of any concept of decency and rational thought. He really is repulsive, no matter how many times one tries to rethink it. Maher doesn’t care that he is ugly and hasty. Palin doesn’t care that you might think she is. There’s a big difference.

armwood said:
I have never used the word punishment. What I am saying is that they have benefited from white privilege at the expense of blacks when they arrived in America. Just like the German soldier who my father fought under the American flag could emigrate to America and buy a house where my father could not buy one and get a job, with less qualifications than by father because of white privilege. The damage of this intentional tort demands a remedy. Those who unjustly were enriched should pay.

You didn’t answer my question you simply continue to demonstrate your lack of intellectual skills.

Oh, and how far back do we go with this punishment of the children for the sins of the father?

armwood said:
Europeans put slaves neck deep in sand on beaches, put honey on their faces and let the insects eat hem them to death. Barbarism is everywhere. What you are avoiding is that the Euro-American slave trade and its aftermath was the largest human trans generational holocaust in human history. This is undeniable. You fruitless attempt to justify this barbarism by saying other people do similar things is nothing but an in artful dodge. We are talking about the United States and its founding fathers. No other example you can name involved over ten million deaths and over 300 years of brutalization.

The first slave legally owned in what would become the United States was owned by a black man, but if you accept that the blacks that arrived in 1619 were slaves, I do, then slavery existed in the United States for 246 years. Does anything you write here ever contain facts or intellectual honesty? Oh, and by the way, if was the Afro-Euro-American slave trade since the black slaves were originally sold to the Europeans by other blacks.

Oh, one more fact, the largest trans-generational holocaust in human history was committed by the Moslems against the non-believers, try reading real history my little racist liar.

RichS said:
You didn’t answer my question you simply continue to demonstrate your lack of intellectual skills.

Oh, and how far back do we go with this punishment of the children for the sins of the father?

I will gladly measure put of my academic credentials against yours. By the way I did answer your question. Can you even read, or is reading comprehension above your pay grade? Go back and read my response dimwit.

RichS said:
You didn’t answer my question you simply continue to demonstrate your lack of intellectual skills.

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that armwood engaging in monologues rather than debate, is a “lack of intellectual skills”. He seems as bright as the average person around here.

I do think perhaps there’s a buzz-word laden script to which he adheres, and getting off that is out of his comfort zone.

RichS said:
The first slave legally owned in what would become the United States was owned by a black man, but if you accept that the blacks that arrived in 1619 were slaves, I do, then slavery existed in the United States for 246 years. Does anything you write here ever contain facts or intellectual honesty? Oh, and by the way, if was the Afro-Euro-American slave trade since the black slaves were originally sold to the Europeans by other blacks.

Oh, one more fact, the largest trans-generational holocaust in human history was committed by the Moslems against the non-believers, try reading real history my little racist liar.

That is an outright falsehood. You do not have to lie to make your argument. You make an ridiculous comment with no documentation. Unlike you I document my claims. But I realize you are to lazy to do that.

“The first African slaves arrived in present day United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. The ill-fated colony was almost immediately disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the slaves revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans. De’Ayllón and many of the colonists died shortly afterwards of an epidemic, and the colony was abandoned, leaving the escaped slaves behind on North American soil.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_colonial_United_States

I will no longer respond to your posts. You join the club of scoundrels who I will not respond to.

armwood said:
I will no longer respond to your posts. You join the club of scoundrels who I will not respond to.

I’m not a scoundrel, Armwood.

I’m someone who merely had the temerity to ask you back up heinous charges that you made against me.

armwood said:
Chattel slavery idiot, was unique to Euro-American barbarism. No culture in recorded history treated its slaves as sub-human animals and breed them like dogs and used them as they would farm animals, systematically destroyed their culture and families and systematically kidnapped, raped generations of women, and molested their children. Learn something about American history before you address me again. If you actually read a little bit you would know that the murderous Euro-American slave trade and slave system created the largest human, trans-generational holocaust in human history. What does political parties have to do with this? This was part of a barbaric culture. This began in 1619, long before political parties had developed, long before the United States was even formed. The legal system perpetuating this evil system began to be unraveled in 1865 and was not fully unraveled until 1965. What law school did you graduate from, none so don’t question me questions about the constitution. Obviously you did not even go to a top tier undergraduate school, let alone a major graduate or professional school. Put doen your beer can, pick up the other ones scattered on the floor, put them in the garbage can and go to bed and sleep it off.

Wrong again: “Traditional slavery, often called chattel slavery, is probably the least prevalent of the contemporary forms of slavery. According to the American Anti-Slavery group (http://www.anti-slavery.org), in Mauritania, where slavery was legally abolished in 1980, 90,000 darker-skinned Africans still live as the property of the Muslim Berber communities. Although the Africans in Mauritania converted to Islam more than 100 years ago, and the Qur’an forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, in Mauritania race seems to outrank religious doctrine. Such chattel slaves are used for their labor, sex, and breeding, and are exchanged for camels, trucks, guns, or money. Children of chattel slaves remain the property of their master. And even among freed slaves, a tribute is often paid to former masters, who also maintain inheritance rights over freed slaves’ property.

In Sudan, slavery is making a comeback as the result of a war waged over the past twelve years by the Muslim north against the Christians and Animists in the south. Sudan means “land of the blacks” in Arabic, and for centuries black Africans were abducted in Sudan as part of the Arabian slave trade. Anti-Slavery researchers describe a revival of a racially-based slave trade where armed northern militias raid the southern civilian villages for slaves. Reports to the UN Commission on Human Rights have underscored the racial aspect of such practices as victims are exclusively persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the Nuba Mountains (darker-skinned Africans). Government-armed Arab militias are known to kill the men and enslave the women and children as personal property or to march them north to be auctioned off and sold.

Prohibitions:
• The 1926 Slavery Convention
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Related Sites:
CASMAS, the Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan.”

armwood, what race was Mao Zedong? How many murders were committed by the orders of Mao Zedong? If you guessed Chinese, and between 40 and 70 million, you would be right! And, you would have used you brain for once.

Bonus question(s): who was Anita Dunn’s favorite philosopher, and why did 0bama have her in his administration?

Bonus question two: Did native Americans commit crimes against other native Americans, by means of torture, rape and enslavement???

Three: Is there slavery in Africa to this very day!?

Four: Is my wife from Bakau, or Fajara Gambia?

Five: is she Muslim or Christian?

Six: Is she racist?

Dummy.

armwood said:
I know you do not respect academic inquiry, you indicated that in an earlier post but actual research and evidence matter.

Oh, I have great respect for academic inquiry. What I don’t respect are those incarcerated in institutions, surrounded by nothing but Leftist propaganda coming from others only indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda as well. Absence of real-world experience negates the term “education” from rational consideration. None of that qualifies as “academic inquiry.”

Rational thought, armwood, only comes from consideration of all diverse viewpoints with results being the only valid scorecard for those diverse viewpoints. The only diversity tolerated by Liberals is diversity in skin color and/or sexual immorality……………..zero tolerance for diversity of thought, as you so aptly display here. And actual results somehow escape the agenda of Leftist academia in their isolation in self-congratulatory, myopic delusion.

armwood said:
That is an outright falsehood. You do not have to lie to make your argument. You make an ridiculous comment with no documentation. Unlike you I document my claims. But I realize you are to lazy to do that.
“The first African slaves arrived in present day United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. The ill-fated colony was almost immediately disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the slaves revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans. De’Ayllón and many of the colonists died shortly afterwards of an epidemic, and the colony was abandoned, leaving the escaped slaves behind on North American soil.”

I don’t care.
Obama will give us all free food .

armwood, have you ever sought professional help?

Are you sad because we are working to prevent your “victim hood” status?

Do you lighten your skin, or darken it?

Without affirmative action, could you have learned so many facts that just aren’t true?

Is that a chip on your shoulder, or do you have a brother named Quazimodo?

xtranormal said:
I don’t care.
Obama will give us all free food .

0nly people like armwood believe anything is free.

Cecelia said:
The first African slaves arrived in present day United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony

I was unaware of this and I stand corrected on this point. But the first legally owned slave in what was to become America was owned by a black man as the result of a court case in Virginia which ended the indentured servant or slave arguement. Look it up.

John CasorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Slavery

Early history
History · Antiquity · Aztec
Ancient Greece · Rome
Medieval Europe
Thrall · Kholop · Serfdom
Slavery and religion
The Bible · Judaism
Christianity · Islam
By country or region
Africa · Atlantic · Arab
Coastwise · Portugal · Angola
Barbary Coast
Britain and Ireland
British Virgin Islands
Brazil · Canada · India · China
Iran · Japan · Libya · Mauritania
Ottoman empire
Romania · Spanish New World
Sudan · Sweden · Texas · United States
Contemporary
Modern Africa · Debt bondage
Peonage · Penal labour
Sexual slavery · Wage slavery
Unfree labour · Human trafficking
Contemporary slavery
Opposition and resistance
Timeline · Abolitionism
Compensated emancipation
Opponents of slavery‎
Slave rebellion · Slave narrative
v · d · e
In 1654, John Casor of Northampton County in the Virginia Colony became the first person in that colony to be declared a slave for life.

[edit] Background

Cecelia said:
I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that armwood engaging in monologues rather than debate, is a “lack of intellectual skills”. He seems as bright as the average person around here. I do think perhaps there’s a buzz-word laden script to which he adheres, and getting off that is out of his comfort zone.

He claims to have superior skills but fails to do the research demanded of someone making such a claim. My background is Slavic, that is where the word slave comes from, so I am very tired of people telling me I should pay for what was done while my grandparents were serfs in what is now Poland. When Al Gore gives up his billions, his antecedents certainly profitted from the slave trade, and President Obama apologies since his antecedents came from Nigeria which was one of the countries that sold slaves to the Europeans, then you can talk to me about reparations.

ndanielson said:
0nly people like armwood believe anything is free.

I don’t care .

Hope and Change .

Yes we can .

RichS said:
Cecelia said:
The first African slaves arrived in present day United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony

RichS, Cecelia never said that…. nor did I make a case for reparations.

armwood said:
Chattel slavery idiot, was unique to Euro-American barbarism. No culture in recorded history treated its slaves as sub-human animals and breed them like dogs and used them as they would farm animals, systematically destroyed their culture and families and systematically kidnapped, raped generations of women, and molested their children. Learn something about American history before you address me again. If you actually read a little bit you would know that the murderous Euro-American slave trade and slave system created the largest human, trans-generational holocaust in human history. What does political parties have to do with this? This was part of a barbaric culture. This began in 1619, long before political parties had developed, long before the United States was even formed. The legal system perpetuating this evil system began to be unraveled in 1865 and was not fully unraveled until 1965. What law school did you graduate from, none so don’t question me questions about the constitution. Obviously you did not even go to a top tier undergraduate school, let alone a major graduate or professional school. Put doen your beer can, pick up the other ones scattered on the floor, put them in the garbage can and go to bed and sleep it off.

Chattel slavery exists in Africa today even though it was recently outlawed. Why would something that doesn’t exist be outlawed?

“According to the American Anti-Slavery group (http://www.anti-slavery.org), in Mauritania, where slavery was legally abolished in 1980, 90,000 darker-skinned Africans still live as the property of the Muslim Berber communities. Although the Africans in Mauritania converted to Islam more than 100 years ago, and the Qur’an forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, in Mauritania race seems to outrank religious doctrine. Such chattel slaves are used for their labor, sex, and breeding, and are exchanged for camels, trucks, guns, or money. Children of chattel slaves remain the property of their master. And even among freed slaves, a tribute is often paid to former masters, who also maintain inheritance rights over freed slaves’ property.”

armwood said:
Chattel slavery idiot, was unique to Euro-American barbarism. No culture in recorded history treated its slaves as sub-human animals and breed them like dogs and used them as they would farm animals, systematically destroyed their culture and families and systematically kidnapped, raped generations of women, and molested their children. Learn something about American history before you address me again. If you actually read a little bit you would know that the murderous Euro-American slave trade and slave system created the largest human, trans-generational holocaust in human history. What does political parties have to do with this? This was part of a barbaric culture. This began in 1619, long before political parties had developed, long before the United States was even formed. The legal system perpetuating this evil system began to be unraveled in 1865 and was not fully unraveled until 1965. What law school did you graduate from, none so don’t question me questions about the constitution. Obviously you did not even go to a top tier undergraduate school, let alone a major graduate or professional school. Put doen your beer can, pick up the other ones scattered on the floor, put them in the garbage can and go to bed and sleep it off.

Gee, no one can discuss or as you put it “question me questions about the constitution” unless they went to law school. Does that mean that if John Marshall were alive today he couldn’t “question me questions about the constitution” since he didn’t go to law school? You did know that, didn’t you. OH, and Solon, the Law-Giver, also didn’t go to law school so I guess he also couldn’t “question me questions about the constitution.

Cecelia said:
RichS, Cecelia never said that…. nor did I make a case for reparations.

Sorry, my mistake, it was Armwood. The “Quote” application doesn’t always work correctly and I don’t always check what was quoted. I do apologize.

Kim Barker said:
Just after you tell the Bush’s to give back all that Nazi money and the Koch brothers that sponsor much of the Tea Party and their rhetoric to give back their Stalin money. Which basically means that STALIN is funding the Tea Party. Ironic, ain’t it. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

I’m not the one looking to punish the children for the sins of the father but, since you brought it up, what Nazi money would that be? If you are talking about Senator Bush, yes, I think he should have been thoroughly investaged. Should his children be punished? Are you a supporter of the notion that children should be punished for the crimes of their fathers? That is the question here.

RichS said:
Wrong again: “Traditional slavery, often called chattel slavery, is probably the least prevalent of the contemporary forms of slavery. According to the American Anti-Slavery group (http://www.anti-slavery.org), in Mauritania, where slavery was legally abolished in 1980, 90,000 darker-skinned Africans still live as the property of the Muslim Berber communities. Although the Africans in Mauritania converted to Islam more than 100 years ago, and the Qur’an forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, in Mauritania race seems to outrank religious doctrine. Such chattel slaves are used for their labor, sex, and breeding, and are exchanged for camels, trucks, guns, or money. Children of chattel slaves remain the property of their master. And even among freed slaves, a tribute is often paid to former masters, who also maintain inheritance rights over freed slaves’ property.

In Sudan, slavery is making a comeback as the result of a war waged over the past twelve years by the Muslim north against the Christians and Animists in the south. Sudan means “land of the blacks” in Arabic, and for centuries black Africans were abducted in Sudan as part of the Arabian slave trade. Anti-Slavery researchers describe a revival of a racially-based slave trade where armed northern militias raid the southern civilian villages for slaves. Reports to the UN Commission on Human Rights have underscored the racial aspect of such practices as victims are exclusively persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the Nuba Mountains (darker-skinned Africans). Government-armed Arab militias are known to kill the men and enslave the women and children as personal property or to march them north to be auctioned off and sold.

Prohibitions:
• The 1926 Slavery Convention
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Related Sites:
CASMAS, the Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan.”

Your response has nothing to do what I described. Are you that ignorant that you cannot even read what you are posting? You don’t know the difference between the slave system that developed in the Americas and contemporary slavery? Find one place where I said contemporary slavery was chattel slavery. Euro-American slavery is not contemporary slavery. Chattel slavery was practiced in the United States. I cannot believe that your reading comprehension skills are so poor.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Chattel+slavery

armwood said:
I will gladly measure put of my academic credentials against yours (RichS).

Ya see, armwood, you only are capable of thinking within the confines of the walls of Academis. (I think we should capitalize “Academia” to distinguish it from actual education and applied intelligence we can simply refer to as “academic.”)

I probably have at least the same Academic credentials as you, armwood. But my education is both tempered and embellished with many decades of real-world experience, after my excape from the institution that still incarcerates you.

armwood said:
I will no longer respond to your (again, RichS) posts. You join the club of scoundrels who I will not respond to.

Where, may I ask, might I also apply for membership?

Davo said:
Ya see, armwood, you only are capable of thinking within the confines of the walls of Academis. (I think we should capitalize “Academia” to distinguish it from actual education and applied intelligence we can simply refer to as “academic.”)]

i have not spent my whole life confined in the world of academia. I have had many varied work experiences, all in the private sector. By the way I am probably older than you.

armwood said:
i have not spent my whole life confined in the world of academia. I have had many varied work experiences, all in the private sector. By the way I am probably older than you.

Well, since you have such a need to constantly refer to it, I’d say you are very much still imprisoned by Academia. Formal education for me and most of those i know, is something we only considered as some preparation for real life, replaced upon graduation with what I keep calling the “real world” experience. BTW, whoever spent the money to send you through Academia must have made a bad investment judging by your need to edit provided information before trying to argue against it, as well as your incapability of figuring out how to use the software furnished for our quotes and comments.

And not that age is the least bit relevant here, armwood, but I seriously doubt you are the elder. If you are, then double shame be upon you for wasting so much of your life avoiding common sense, and preferring denial and delusion instead.

Now, about that application for membership in your “scoundrel club”……………….

armwood said:
Your response has nothing to do what I described. Are you that ignorant that you cannot even read what you are posting? You don’t know the difference between the slave system that developed in the Americas and contemporary slavery? Find one place where I said contemporary slavery was chattel slavery. Euro-American slavery is not contemporary slavery. Chattel slavery was practiced in the United States. I cannot believe that your reading comprehension skills are so poor. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Chattel+slavery

My response was to exactly what you described. I used your description to find the article. If you had bothered to read my reference and your references you would have seen mine was “spot on,” I put that in quotes cause I think its pompous but used it because I think you are pompous.

Your phone intellegence act offends me. I have had the honor of working with some truly brilliant people in the past. One of them was in the NASA control room working on the problem of keeping the Apollo astronauts alive. He has a PHD in physics and a JD. He was not the pompous wind bag that you are. Another was the designer of the lunar lander. Ditto for him wind bag wise (to use another pompous expression I’m sure you love). And the last one I’ll refer to was awarded the Noble Prize in Physics, I didn’t actually work with him but had a couple of one on one discussions with him. All of them shared one trait that you don’t. All of them had inquiring minds. You are locked in a prison of the indoctrinated mind, and I pity you.

Davo said:
Ya see, armwood, you only are capable of thinking within the confines of the walls of Academis. (I think we should capitalize “Academia” to distinguish it from actual education and applied intelligence we can simply refer to as “academic.”) I probably have at least the same Academic credentials as you, armwood. But my education is both tempered and embellished with many decades of real-world experience, after my excape from the institution that still incarcerates you. Where, may I ask, might I also apply for membership?

Your application is in the mail.

Mr. Maher needs to learn history. There is sufficient evidence from numerous sources clearly demonstrate that many of our founders were devout. He suffers from the popular delusion -fueled by the humanist history profs that permeate our colleges like mold on week old bread – that the Enlightenment was a renunciation of Faith. Nothing could be further from the truth, Most of the luminaries of the Enlightenment (outside of France, where the most sophisticated piece of political thought emanated from the mind of Dr. Guillotine) were seeking to see the connection between the natural world and the Hand of God. They were seeking to apply the miracles of God’s creation to the man-made realms of politics, commerce, and other social sciences.

In debates – friendly and vicious – with liberals, I wait eagerly for them to trot out something about the ‘founding fathers’. I then ask them if they have read the Constitution. The Federalist Papers? Can they name 15 ‘founders’? 10? 9 times out of 10, my sparring partner will either admit no or angrily shout that that’s not relevant to the argument.

They then immediately go on to quote Maher, Stewart, the Daily Kos, Huffpo, Micheal Moore, Move-On….sorry libs – those folk aren’t founders.

Get thee to a library Mr. Maher.

Davo said:
Well, since you have such a need to constantly refer to it, I’d say you are very much still imprisoned by Academia. Formal education for me and most of those i know, is something we only considered as some preparation for real life, replaced upon graduation with what I keep calling the “real world” experience. BTW, whoever spent the money to send you through Academia must have made a bad investment judging by your need to edit provided information before trying to argue against it, as well as your incapability of figuring out how to use the software furnished for our quotes and comments. And not that age is the least bit relevant here, armwood, but I seriously doubt you are the elder. If you are, then double shame be upon you for wasting so much of your life avoiding common sense, and preferring denial and delusion instead. Now, about that application for membership in your “scoundrel club”……………….

Please be patient, we are being flooded with demands for membership and we only have a staff of 153,347,305 people to handle the membership in a club that ensures Armwood will never talk to them again. There is one disclaimer, he did answer a post of mine after swearing he wouldn’t, so, I guess, his word is not his bond.

Imagine Armwood the defense attorney, “Your honor everything said against my case is wrong and the opposing attorney did not go to a school that was as good as mine!”

RichS said:
Imagine Armwood the defense attorney, “Your honor everything said against my case is wrong and the opposing attorney did not go to a school that was as good as mine!”

“And I’m probably older than him, and everybody knows 8th graders are SMORTER than 7th graders.”

armwood said:
I have never used the word punishment. What I am saying is that they have benefited from white privilege at the expense of blacks when they arrived in America. Just like the German soldier who my father fought under the American flag could emigrate to America and buy a house where my father could not buy one and get a job, with less qualifications than by father because of white privilege. The damage of this intentional tort demands a remedy. Those who unjustly were enriched should pay.

You seem hell bent on some sort of gestalt comparison of groups’ aggregate wealth based on historical trends. In your analysis, to what extent do you factor in the relative affluence of the descendents of black slaves in America today with the relative poverty of blacks in their native Africa?

@RichS

armwood said:
I will no longer respond to your posts. You join the club of scoundrels who I will not respond to.

Welcome RichS. I am a proud charter member of the Scoundrel Club that arpmpity ignores. I rather like it that way.

At tonight’s meeting of the Scoundrel Club we will make fun of armwood’s name…he just hates that.
For example – dumbwood, asswood, armpit, armless, armwoody, noarms, armchair…you get the idea.

Prizes for the best name include an autographed picture of army, suitable for framing (or a dart board), and a signed copy of the unabridged written collection of his opinions…which according to him, he has been paid for.

RabbleRouserJr said:
The TEA Party came from Ron Paul End the Fed rallies back during the Bush years. You really did answer your own question.. Up until well after Obama had been inaugurated, it remained a fairly underground movement of End the Fed Ron Paul supporters, the remnant of classical liberals, libertarians, anti-war/anti-police state activists, and other such folks. At some point, Fox News saw a rising movement and couldn’t resist capitalizing on it (no doubt to try to herd them back into the left-right paradigm, rather than contuning on the populist socio-political-economic basis it was furthering). They appointed (wrongly) Sarah Palin as some sort of leader even though she had no history of being libertarian or even particularly conservative( McCain is not even a conservative), and the former neocon Glen Beck (who used to say that Ron Paul supporters should be taken out by the US Military for “working with al quaeda” changed his rhetoric as well). Since then, Fox News has helped to publicize the movement, but largely has failed to co-opt it (other than a fringe which the media attempts to latch on to for dear life/propaganda purposes). It’s far from perfect, but generally the message is still a positive one. My largest gripe is that some of the anti-war crowd has been drowned out within it, which doesn’t make sense. War is the health of the state. War is what creates big government and high taxes. If you are really into small government, you HAVE TO be anti-war in order to escape being a total hypocrite. I think what people need to realize is that the Tea Parties started before Obama even got elected, as a rebellion against Bush. They only continued with Obama because he has done more of the same spending madness, growing government, etc. . . Because it doesn’t fit into the box of “the religious right vs. the socialist left” paradigm, the establishment doesn’t like it (which is why top Republicans have tried to stop it just as much as top Democrats) I think that Bill Maher is quite disingenuous with his slander of anyone he deems “a teabagger”. He is childish, ignorant and rude. He out-derps even the biggest derp kings and queens on the fanatical religious right that he makes fun of. The fact that he believes that ALL of the Founding Fathers were of one persuasion or another shows his utter ignorance. There were a number of people from different points of view who could fit that bill. It is utterly stupid that he picks Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson as those he believes would have agreed with him on much of anything. It is true that both were non-superstitious deists, men of science, well read in philosophy, history, classical literature, economics, etc. . . but they would have seen Mahers blatant statism as a contradiction to everything they stood for. If you read much of Paine or Jefferson, it is exactly the sort of thing that people such as Maher ridicule. For example, Jefferson was virtually an anarchist in his political philosophy. He viewed government as one of the most evil entities to exist, and sought to as best he could restrain it to the point of it almost being inept. Jefferson was the originator of State Nullification of Federal law, and was staunchly anti-Europe, against the pro-Europe statists such as Alexander Hamilton who wanted to reunite with the British Empire or at least bring in an unelected Monarchy back home. The other bits that Maher overlooks are both Thomases were against taxation as well. I also guess that Maher forgets that Paine’s brilliant abolitionist pamphlet called “African Slavery in America” argues for the abolition of slavery purely on Christian moral grounds. I’m not a religious person, but people like Maher make my skin crawl. He tries to twist history to fit his narrow minded view of the world, as if liberal in those days had anything to do with what is called “liberal” these days. Maher is a worshipper of government. The Founding Fathers were not, which is why they incited a Revolution.

Yes, yes, 1000-times yes. Great post. Keep the faith.

RichS said:
John Casor of Northampton County in the Virginia Colony

What research did I fail to do. Once again you lie. I accurate said that the first slaves were brought here in 1619. Cecilia talked about slavery for life. I did not. For you this is new information. I have known this material for forty years. Your ignorance, coupled with your arrogance is appalling. Do not assume that everyones world is as small as yours.

“The Ultimate Irony in the John Casor/Anthony Johnson Incident
As one might expect, the story did not end well for Casor as he did indeed remain a slave to Johnson. Throughout his lifetime, Anthony Johnson imported more African slaves. However, when he died in 1670, his land was seized by the government. The courts decided that because Johnson was a black man, he was not a citizen of the colony, and thus, he could not own land.

Read more at Suite Black History Spotlight – John Casor: Why This Man’s Story is Important in African American History
http://www.suite101.com/content/black-history-spotlight—john-casor-a206298#ixzz1BEO02SOW

Just_MC said:
Yes, yes, 1000-times yes. Great post. Keep the faith.

Ron Paul, the despicable character who opposes the open accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This evil man in his like minded son are the enemy of decent Americans.

And then you say the Tea Party is not racist.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/ron-paul-appeared-on-meet-the-press-in-07-and-spoke-out-against-civil-rights-act-video.php

What if the Tea Party was Black?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtH7vH4yRcY

armwood said:
What research did I fail to do. Once again you lie. I accurate said that the first slaves were brought here in 1619. Cecilia talked about slavery for life. I did not. For you this is new information. I have known this material for forty years. Your ignorance, coupled with your arrogance is appalling. Do not assume that everyones world is as small as yours. “The Ultimate Irony in the John Casor/Anthony Johnson IncidentAs one might expect, the story did not end well for Casor as he did indeed remain a slave to Johnson. Throughout his lifetime, Anthony Johnson imported more African slaves. However, when he died in 1670, his land was seized by the government. The courts decided that because Johnson was a black man, he was not a citizen of the colony, and thus, he could not own land. Read more at Suite Black History Spotlight – John Casor: Why This Man’s Story is Important in African American Historyhttp://www.suite101.com/content/black-history-spotlight—john-casor-a206298#ixzz1BEO02SOW

I’ve know this information since I was in high school, which was more than forty years ago. And no, what you did was ignore this part of the story until you were draggeed kicking and screaming into it. Now, why did your original reply simply consist of “You lie” Is that the result of your superior intellect or your superior education or the fact that you are an emply bag of wind who needed to be pointed in the right direction by me to find the information that was clearly news to you.

This man, John Armwood, works in education? My God (in the Spinoza sense) I fear for those whose minds are being indoctrinated by this person (I reserve the use of the word man for those with more substance than Armwood).

SmartAlec said:
At tonight’s meeting of the Scoundrel Club we will make fun of armwood’s name…he just hates that.For example – dumbwood, asswood, armpit, armless, armwoody, noarms, armchair…you get the idea. Prizes for the best name include an autographed picture of army, suitable for framing (or a dart board), and a signed copy of the unabridged written collection of his opinions…which according to him, he has been paid for.

A club like this needs some pomp. We should introduce meetings with the playing of the instrumental “Race Colored Glasses” as everyone files in. Meetings will then be called to order. We can use an old Mr. Potatohead as a statuette of armwood, placed high on the wall above the President’s chair. Hanging below that will be a sweater vest, jauntily enclosing an empty shirt. The President will have an Executive Assistant Barbie for a gavel. (Not because of anything about armwood, just because it would be funny if order was manintained by “banging the secretary on the table.”) At the conclusion of old and new business, we will have the Monthly Bloviation: a chain of non-sequiturs from the members in attendance, moving clockwise around the room with a contribution from each. After which the President will hold up the Harry Potter book and tell the membership that they are a bunch of trolls who still cannot read at an 8th grade level. This will commence the “insult someone’s education” contest., after which the Secretary will record the winning entry in the minutes, and the Treasurer will don the ceremonial Loch Ness Monster headdress, walk up to the Mr. Potatohead, and withdraw tree-fitty as a prize for the winner.

Though otherwise jovial, meetings will conclude with a solemn prayer of thanks to all those who judge others by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. And finally with a sincere prayer for armwood himself, that he may be able to achieve this same enlightenment, and be honestly welcomed into the Scoundrels’ Club as a beloved member.

My bad, I did refer to Armwood as a man. Does this mean I’ll be thrown out of the Scoundrel’s Club?

armwood said:
Ron Paul, the despicable character who opposes the open accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This evil man in his like minded son are the enemy of decent Americans. And then you say the Tea Party is not racist. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/ron-paul-appeared-on-meet-the-press-in-07-and-spoke-out-against-civil-rights-act-video.php What if the Tea Party was Black? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtH7vH4yRcY

You do realize that supporting free speech is not an endorsement of all the speech that is exercised? As such, your self-proclaimed support of the KKK’s right to speak freely was not an endorsement by you of their racism, but rather just an endorsement of their right to speak for themselves.

And likewise, a principled stance that every man can choose to conduct or not conduct PRIVATE business with anyone he chooses, for any reason, is not an endorsement of his choices (which could be racist) but is only an endorsement of his freedom to choose for himself.

All the while, in the public (not private) world, where tax dollars are confiscated by the threat of force to support public universities, you support racial discrimination in admissions.

Wait, I can answer my own question. You apparently don’t realize any of this.

You guys need to lighten-up on Wormwood. He obviously suffers from some mental handicap caused by embracing the hatred and vitriol he’s been indoctrinated with. Jesus taught that hatred destroys the hater, not the hated.

Leave him alone and he’ll eventually be dissolved by his own spittle.

Now, RichS, you PROMISED my application would be in the mail. You PROMISED………….

Davo said:
You guys need to lighten-up on Wormwood. He obviously suffers from some mental handicap caused by embracing the hatred and vitriol he’s been indoctrinated with. Jesus taught that hatred destroys the hater, not the hated. Leave him alone and he’ll eventually be dissolved by his own spittle. Now, RichS, you PROMISED my application would be in the mail. You PROMISED………….

Order! ORDER!! Don’t make me bang the secretary on the table again!!

Mr. Maher is a twit who simply takes what he perceives as the “unpopular” side of everything. Witness his recent moronic support of the antivaxxer movement. That being said, that doesn’t automatically make the things he says wrong; it just means that his words are unreliable as evidence.

The founding document of our country was written without an embedded invocation, in spite of repeated calls for the inclusion of such wording. It also included reasonably strong measures for keeping religion and governance separate. In the Constitution itself, there is the oft-forgotten No Religious Test clause — our government is not to be bound to one religion, nor are people to be barred from service based on an irrelevant social marker like religiosity. And, of course, there is the more familiar Establishment clause of the first Amendment. The founders weren’t burn-down-all-religion fascists; they simply wanted a government that didn’t perennially defer its moral thinking to the pulpit, nor one that fostered inter-faith hostility. That happened partially because of a strong secularism-favoring contingent among the founders — most notably, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine.

You don’t have to be a fuzzy-bearded atheist to favor secular governance. In pre-revolutionary America, religion and government were painfully intermingled — colonies had split over religion; people had been burned at the stake in fits of religious mania; many communities were in fact controlled in an authoritarian fashion by churches; and, King George claimed fiat rule by divine right. None of this made for sound governance. The Deists AND many Christians among the founders knew that endless theological interference was poisonous to a well-managed state. So, they made a deal. They decided to run the government with a morality founded on physical, observable (self-evident) truths, one that members of many creeds could access specifically because the government itself would take no side. To make a case before that government, physical proof of harm or need had to be shown. Additionally, the government would be severely restricted from interfering in the private practice of religion — as a DIRECT result of this, religion has remained powerful in America where it has waned in Europe and the rest of the first world.
The religious zealots in the Tea Party are a wretchedly ignorant and ungrateful lot. Their churches are strong in no small part because the government, on a whole, DOES keep its gorilla mitts off of religion. If these Christian-reconstructionist types want to interject dogma directly into public works, they’d better be ready to become a normal part of the public sphere that’s open to scrutiny and outside modification. Yes, in such conditions, their churches will become anemic, will lose their independence, and will lose much of their moral force. That’s what happens when religion joins government as a subordinate. The alternative path for religious entanglement is religion taking a dominant role — but, that’s called theocracy, and it’s anathema to democracy.

Davo said:
You guys need to lighten-up on Wormwood. He obviously suffers from some mental handicap caused by embracing the hatred and vitriol he’s been indoctrinated with. Jesus taught that hatred destroys the hater, not the hated. Leave him alone and he’ll eventually be dissolved by his own spittle. Now, RichS, you PROMISED my application would be in the mail. You PROMISED………….

It was mailed, if you didn’t receive it you must be a racist.

Ribi, I’m with you on every word, though I do have a question. To what extent do you think the Tea Party Movement has enough theocrats in it to even merit mention? I haven’t seen anything in the Teap Party Protests I have attended or observed by other means that suggested anything approaching theocratic inclinations. Rather, I have seen a call for a return to the Constitution, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. Again, this is from the CITIZENS who have been protesting government abuse, not the mishmash of candidates, some good, many bad, who have tried to claim they represent the interests of the Tea Party protesters.

Likewise, the biggest legitimate criticism of the protesters themselves is that too many lack understanding of the evils of the warfare state. This includes both failing to understand the the principle of non-interventionist foreign policy and in the practical reality of how our breaking this principle bankrupts the country right along with the entitlement programs.

Second biggest criticism of the protesters is that too many fail to understand the details of the math of the existing entitlement programs, and their fear of having their benefits taken (while a valid concern because they have paid for so long) keeps them from putting enough focus on the proper way to disarm these financial bombs.

Third biggest criticism of the protesters is that too many fail to look closely at how politicians vote. So, while the protesters are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in seeking a return to Constitutionally limited government, they have only done so well in sorting out the rhetoric from the behavior of many pols. They’re doing far better than people have in recent years, don’t get me wrong, but many have a ways to go.

These are the biggest flaws I see amongst some in the Tea Party movement. That said, they are leaps and bounds ahead of those outside the movement.

What I don’t see is anything significant that fits the theocratic disaster you describe, which I agree is a disaster, but doesn’t appear to have any significant real-world manifestation.

The second biggest criticism of the

ribi said:
The Deists AND many Christians among the founders knew that endless theological interference was poisonous to a well-managed state. So, they made a deal. They decided to run the government with a morality founded on physical, observable (self-evident) truths,

Like MC, I’m mostly in agreement with you, and like MC, I see the current “theocratic phobia” as simply unfounded. I do, take issue with your above assertions that seem to edit out the main basis for our “self-evident truths” ………….that we were “endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…………….” That recognizes that man cannot remove what God has bestowed…………not in America, at least.

Jefferson aptly stated:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

I agree, as did our founders, that religion and government best not get intertwined. But that in no way is reason for any erroneous notion that our founders disregarded the importance of worship of God, or His blessings that provided the very freedoms we fight to keep.

Tea Party? Like our Constitution says, neither the establishment of, nor the free exercise thereof.

I think the Founding Fathers would take one look at the tea-party crowd and direct them to remedial education…or the Special Olympics.

armwood said:
Ron Paul, the despicable character who opposes the open accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This evil man in his like minded son are the enemy of decent Americans.

And then you say the Tea Party is not racist.

Typical libertarian doctrine based on a narrow (and misguided, I think ) belief that there should no govt intrusion into private affairs.

They also want to do way with concepts like eminent domain, gay marriage bans, the current income tax structure, the criminalization of drugs and prostitution, military interventionism, etc.

To link what is a the logical progression of a stringent limited government political philosophy to overt racism (a hatred of those of a different race) in order to impugn the entire Tea Party movement and it’s support for some libertarian candidates, is disingenuous, to say the least.

However, you’ve accused me of racism and white supremacist beliefs, for far less.

Guppies would have more credibility than you in a discussion on racism.

armwood said:
What if the Tea Party was Black?

They would call it the “Black Panthers”?

armwood said:
What if the Tea Party was Black?

My bad. The Black Panthers were more violent than the Tea Party.

njoy-d-ride said:
My bad. The Black Panthers were more violent than the Tea Party.

Actually, no.

Just_MC said:
We can use an old Mr. Potatohead as a statuette of armwood

Holy Crap that’s funny!
You owe me a new keyboard, mine was just ruined with Pepsi.

Cecelia said:
Typical libertarian doctrine based on a narrow (and misguided, I think ) belief that there should no govt intrusion into private affairs..

Cecelia, you have shown yourself to be very thoughtful, I’m curious where you think government should intervene in my private affairs (other than to enforce contracts if I, or those I contract with, violate them.)

Likewise, when is war justified? And when is it justified to intervene in the affairs of other soverign nations?

SmartAlec said:
Holy Crap that’s funny!You owe me a new keyboard, mine was just ruined with Pepsi.

LOL, keyboard sent. BTW, I submit “ramwood” as my entry for the naming contest.

He’s totally right, Glenn Beck is such a clown in his Thomas Payne get up! If he ever bothered to actually READ “Age of Reason” he would know what Payne would think of Beck’s “beliefs” and his dumb revival meetin’ with the Quitting Quitter.

The Baggers are exactly like the people who claimed Ben Franklin made God mad by inventing the lightning rod and messin’ with “the Almighty’s arsenal.” Franklin was accused of causing earthquakes because God was mad at the lightning rods. Finally churches had to give in, because they kept getting hit by lightning! Today’s Baggers are the ones that don’t believe carbon emissions couldn’t possibly affect the climate, because the weather is God’s big wooden spoon, that he beats us with when we don’t persecute The Gay. ABSOLUTELY the founders were LIBERALS and INTELLECTUALS. Two things all fascists hate!

K8-EEE said:
The Baggers are exactly like the people who claimed Ben Franklin made God mad by inventing the lightning rod and messin’ with “the Almighty’s arsenal.” Franklin was accused of causing earthquakes because God was mad at the lightning rods. Finally churches had to give in, because they kept getting hit by lightning! Today’s Baggers are the ones that don’t believe carbon emissions couldn’t possibly affect the climate, because the weather is God’s big wooden spoon, that he beats us with when we don’t persecute The Gay. ABSOLUTELY the founders were LIBERALS and INTELLECTUALS. Two things all fascists hate!

I think the last post is the perfect “bookend” to the insanity spewed by Bill Maher at the beginning of this thread. Maybe we should let it serve as such.

On the other hand, remember that most of the “Founding Fathers” were still in power when they passed the “Alien & Sedition Acts”, which basically made it a crime to say anything bad about the President, Congresspeople or anyone else in the government. While the legislation stated it a crime to publish “false, seditious or malicious” information about the government or its officials. Curiously enough, every single case of someone being prosecuted under the law was that of someone of the party that opposed the one in power. Just as “curiously”, the legislation was specifically designed to be eliminated the day before the end of the sitting Presidents term. Why that time? Because they knew that, if they were defeated, the legislation could be used against them.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74

Still, Maher was correct in his statement that the FF would have despised the Tea Party. They were opposed to the idea of true democracy, and abhorred the idea of the power being devolved to the “common people”. The majority felt that power should stay with an aristocracy, because their “better character and superior morals” were what the country needed most.

(On the other hand, the Tea Party’s interests seem to REALLY lie with the secretive moneyed interests that actually fund the party and not with the actual people behind it.)

armwood said:
Your response has nothing to do what I described. Are you that ignorant that you cannot even read what you are posting? You don’t know the difference between the slave system that developed in the Americas and contemporary slavery? Find one place where I said contemporary slavery was chattel slavery. Euro-American slavery is not contemporary slavery. Chattel slavery was practiced in the United States. I cannot believe that your reading comprehension skills are so poor.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Chattel+slavery

I think what armwood is saying is that there is good slavery and bad slavery. Good slavery is where people of color enslave anybody that they desire, and bad slavery is when people of color are enslaved only by whites. Did I get it right, armwood?

Sidebar said:
Still, Maher was correct in his statement that the FF would have despised the Tea Party. They were opposed to the idea of true democracy, and abhorred the idea of the power being devolved to the “common people”. The majority felt that power should stay with an aristocracy, because their “better character and superior morals” were what the country needed most.

(On the other hand, the Tea Party’s interests seem to REALLY lie with the secretive moneyed interests that actually fund the party and not with the actual people behind it.)

Your fear of the Tea Party is duly noted, as is your exaggerations of the views and intent of the framers…………….IF their own words are to be considered relevant. They formed a republican government of lawmakers chosen by the “common people” to represent the interests of those “common people.”

Tea Partiers know that a return to Constitutional government is the only hope America has to avoid falling to the same fate as ALL other societies unfortunate enough to fall into the destructive hands of Leftist Progressivism.

armwood, not totally unlike SarahP, is proof that you can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you can’t make it think.

K8-EEE said:
He’s totally right, Glenn Beck is such a clown in his Thomas Payne get up! If he ever bothered to actually READ “Age of Reason” he would know what Payne would think of Beck’s “beliefs” and his dumb revival meetin’ with the Quitting Quitter.

The Baggers are exactly like the people who claimed Ben Franklin made God mad by inventing the lightning rod and messin’ with “the Almighty’s arsenal.” Franklin was accused of causing earthquakes because God was mad at the lightning rods. Finally churches had to give in, because they kept getting hit by lightning! Today’s Baggers are the ones that don’t believe carbon emissions couldn’t possibly affect the climate, because the weather is God’s big wooden spoon, that he beats us with when we don’t persecute The Gay. ABSOLUTELY the founders were LIBERALS and INTELLECTUALS. Two things all fascists hate!

Yep, quite sure the Founders would have been down with gay marriage and abortion. Yep, In a John Kerry kinda way, they were just getting around to banning guns at universities and major cities right before they didn’t. Thank God Mark Twain wasn’t putting any n-words in books while they were around. And, burning the flag? Hell, yes! They thought of doing that right after the revolution. Idiot.

K8-EEE said:
He’s totally right, Glenn Beck is such a clown in his Thomas Payne get up! If he ever bothered to actually READ “Age of Reason” he would know what Payne would think of Beck’s “beliefs” and his dumb revival meetin’ with the Quitting Quitter.

The Baggers are exactly like the people who claimed Ben Franklin made God mad by inventing the lightning rod and messin’ with “the Almighty’s arsenal.” Franklin was accused of causing earthquakes because God was mad at the lightning rods. Finally churches had to give in, because they kept getting hit by lightning! Today’s Baggers are the ones that don’t believe carbon emissions couldn’t possibly affect the climate, because the weather is God’s big wooden spoon, that he beats us with when we don’t persecute The Gay. ABSOLUTELY the founders were LIBERALS and INTELLECTUALS. Two things all fascists hate!

Fascists? You mean the kind that want to tell you what is and what isn’t vitriolic language? I think baggers is offensive don’t you? Or the type that wants to ban sugar, salt, and transfats because they are so much smarter than you? Or maybe the kind that wants to ban incandescent light bulbs and take your tax dollars to fund abortions? Those kind of fascists? How about the type of fascists that want to take your money to bail out unions and banks, and call people racists and bigots because they do not want their taxes to go to failed businesses? Those kinds of fascists? Or maybe the ones who sit on city councils that gavel down opponents to pet projects like bike trails and failed public transit programs, with fancy new “green” buses? Or fascists that keep trying to say that gay marriage is the law of the land, when it has failed in every state that has put it to a vote? Those kind of fascists? Maybe it is the fascists that won’t let us build refineries since 1973 or drill for our own oil? Or the ones that say don’t smoke or fly your flag because someone will be offended? Or take down the cross, and don’t wear one in school around your neck, so we don’t offend anyone? How about the ones who force ethanol into our cars to subsidize their crony farmers in NB? Or the ones who set unrealistic CAFE standards on automakers after bailing them out with taxpayer money? Or the ones who force us to pay for breakfast lunch and dinner at schools for kids that are obese, according to them? Or maybe it is the fascists that tell insurance companies that they must provide for “kids” up to 26 years of age on their parent’s insurance? Those kind of fascists? Or do you have a different kind of fascist in mind?

For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, whose top tax rates were around 90%? is he more or less socialist than Obama, whose top tax rate (which he extended) is 35%?

Farhan Mohammed said:
For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, whose top tax rates were around 90%? is he more or less socialist than Obama, whose top tax rate (which he extended) is 35%?

Ike actually lowered it to 91% from Truman’s 92% when republicans won the house and senate in ’52. The Senate was led by Senator Richard Russell, leader of the conservative coalition, and that same year little known Barry Goldwater was elected to the Senate having beat out Ernest William McFarland. In 1964, after the assassination of JFK, LBJ lowered the TMR to 77%. Nixon then took the TMR from 77% to 70%.

ndanielson, were you just pointing that out or were you trying to imply something?

K8-EEE said:
He’s totally right, Glenn Beck is such a clown in his Thomas Payne get up! If he ever bothered to actually READ “Age of Reason” he would know what Payne would think of Beck’s “beliefs” and his dumb revival meetin’ with the Quitting Quitter. The Baggers are exactly like the people who claimed Ben Franklin made God mad by inventing the lightning rod and messin’ with “the Almighty’s arsenal.” Franklin was accused of causing earthquakes because God was mad at the lightning rods. Finally churches had to give in, because they kept getting hit by lightning! Today’s Baggers are the ones that don’t believe carbon emissions couldn’t possibly affect the climate, because the weather is God’s big wooden spoon, that he beats us with when we don’t persecute The Gay. ABSOLUTELY the founders were LIBERALS and INTELLECTUALS. Two things all fascists hate!

God has nothing to do with my not believing in the Church of the Almighty Climate Change. I rely on facts. “The satellites that measure temp change have found no increase for 10 years.

The solar physicists’ predictions based on sunspots has been more reliable than the computer models that have predicted large rises in temperature over the last decade. Not proof, but strongly indicative that solar activity in the biggest factor.

It seems nuts to make huge, expensive changes to our economy and energy supply based on such uncertain science.”

I’m an agnostic when it comes to global warming.

I don’t know if the Founders would have hated everyone in the Tea Party movement’s guts, but not one of the Framers would have given Glenn Beck the time of day. They were the elites of their time, and reactionary Beck would have been railing against them just as he would have been railing against Lincoln in his time. Whitfield MIGHT have deigned to have lunch with Beck; no one else. Reactionaries in the late 1700′s were solidly on the side of the King.

Glenn Beck seems to be striving to become known in the future’s history as the biggest hypocrite of all time.

armwood said:
Cecilia talked about slavery for life. I did not.

WHAT??!!

At NO point in this thread have I uttered ONE WORD about slavery!

What are you misconstruing about me now?!!

STOP IT, ARMWOOD!

Can you believe this guy!

First he accuses me of making “racist”, anti-Hispanic”, and “white supremacist” statements in this thread YET REFUSES TO OFFER UP AN EXAMPLE OF ONE SENTENCE OF MINE THAT DID THAT.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/npr-analyst-expresses-relief-that-gunman-behind-arizona-tragedy-was-not-hispanic/

NOW, he’s accusing me of talking about “slavery for life” ….or something…

Does he just systematically accuse everyone of being hideous racists, without a shred of proof….or is it just me who is the beneficiary of his irrational hatred?!

Farhan Mohammed says:
“For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, ”

Eisenhower called the ideas of Beck and many of the tea partiers “stupid.” Yes, that is a direct quote. Here’s another direct quote: contemporary conservative, David Klinghoffer, calls the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh “crazy-cons.” Actually, Glenn Beck is a reactionary.

GlennBeckReview said:
Farhan Mohammed says:“For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, ” Eisenhower called the ideas of Beck and many of the tea partiers “stupid.” Yes, that is a direct quote. Here’s another direct quote: contemporary conservative, David Klinghoffer, calls the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh “crazy-cons.” Actually, Glenn Beck is a reactionary.

president eisenhower called the ideas of beck and many of the tea partiers “stupid” really?

GBR is furious that Glenn Beck isn’t into communists in 0bama’s administration, and that Beck is shedding light on the Communist Party USA.

Farhan Mohammed said:
For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, whose top tax rates were around 90%? is he more or less socialist than Obama, whose top tax rate (which he extended) is 35%?

Farhan Mohammed said:
ndanielson, were you just pointing that out or were you trying to imply something?

Farhan, I guess I simply dismissed such a ridiculous question outright. My opinion is that a five star general probably has a lot more love of country than a Chicago community organizer who went to preppy schools on the dollar of someone else through a discrimination process known as affirmative action. A five star general fighting communism is far better than a far left president who invites self proclaimed communists into his own administration, and whose own wife never found anything to be proud about of America in 26 years of her adult life. Such a wife would be an affront to all American loving citizens, especially those that put their lives on the line to protect the constitution.

Your turn: What do you think of a president whose wife was never proud of America in her 26 years as an adult, and that has openly stated that he does not like the Constitution? Could such a man uphold it as he swore to?

GlennBeckReview said:
Farhan Mohammed says:
“For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, ”

Eisenhower called the ideas of Beck and many of the tea partiers “stupid.” Yes, that is a direct quote. Here’s another direct quote: contemporary conservative, David Klinghoffer, calls the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh “crazy-cons.” Actually, Glenn Beck is a reactionary.

You must have reviewed one of Ike’s early shows to have pulled that quote. Of course Beck was only 5 at the time of Ike’s death, but he spoke fondly of tea parties, even then. And, unlike most five year olds who sell lemonade at the age of five, Beck was pushing hot and cold tea. A man with uncanny insight. Obviously.

ndanielson said:
Farhan Mohammed said:
For all you tea partiers and tea partiers sympathizers, what are your opinions on President Eisenhower, whose top tax rates were around 90%? is he more or less socialist than Obama, whose top tax rate (which he extended) is 35%?

Ike actually lowered it to 91% from Truman’s 92% when republicans won the house and senate in ‘52. The Senate was led by Senator Richard Russell, leader of the conservative coalition, and that same year little known Barry Goldwater was elected to the Senate having beat out Ernest William McFarland. In 1964, after the assassination of JFK, LBJ lowered the TMR to 77%. Nixon then took the TMR from 77% to 70%.

Of course, Truman lowered the Top Marginal Rate from 94% to 92%! But Truman HATED the socialist loving FDR anyway.

GBR, you still haven’t chimed in on Beck’s exposure of George Soros. Is Soros an American-loving type like Michelle 0bama? I have set all my DVR’s to record Beck, just for you. And until you answer about Dunn, Jones and Soros, I will buy one new signed Beck book a week to give as gifts.

Hey GBR, while you’re at it tell us about Francis Fox Piven, and the Cloward-Piven strategy. Why would you hate Beck for bringing that to light???

ndanielson says:

“I will buy one new signed Beck book a week to give as gifts.”

So it’s true what they say about a fool and his money. (Must be, Beck has acquired plenty of someone’s money, and it sure isn’t coming from those with three digit IQ’s.)
ndanielson says:

” the socialist loving FDR anyway.”

When you get an actual education and not misinformation from the Fox Propaganda channel, you learn that FDR was undermining support for socialism with his attempts to get capitalism back on track. Libertarianism is the road to revolutionary socialism. Learn your history.

GlennBeckReview said:
ndanielson says: “I will buy one new signed Beck book a week to give as gifts.” So it’s true what they say about a fool and his money. (Must be, Beck has acquired plenty of someone’s money, and it sure isn’t coming from those with three digit IQ’s.)ndanielson says: ” the socialist loving FDR anyway.” When you get an actual education and not misinformation from the Fox Propaganda channel, you learn that FDR was undermining support for socialism with his attempts to get capitalism back on track. Libertarianism is the road to revolutionary socialism. Learn your history.

really, social security is capitalist

ndanielson says:
“Hey GBR, while you’re at it tell us about Francis Fox Piven, and the Cloward-Piven strategy. Why would you hate Beck for bringing that to light???”

Been there, done that too.

I get it; you think placing Dems in a target is an awesome gravitar; it conveys moral bankruptcy.
You enjoy being lied to (by Beck) because you must think it’s “entertaining;” it convey your ignorance.
YOu follow a rodeo clown who is not educated to address the subjects he’s addressing. He’s in over his head and doesn’t mention a “principle” that he doesn’t turn around and take a massive dump on. Then, you gladly hand him your Gadsen flag so he can wipe his ass with it. You’re in to dishonorable hypocrites. I get it; you’re hoodwinked and blissful in your ignorance.

I have more to do than address the plebeians happy in their support for an a-moral charlatan, like continuing my critique of Beck’s Broke. Enjoy that dark cave Beck has guided you into.

GlennBeckReview said:
ndanielson says:

“I will buy one new signed Beck book a week to give as gifts.”

So it’s true what they say about a fool and his money. (Must be, Beck has acquired plenty of someone’s money, and it sure isn’t coming from those with three digit IQ’s.)
ndanielson says:

” the socialist loving FDR anyway.”

When you get an actual education and not misinformation from the Fox Propaganda channel, you learn that FDR was undermining support for socialism with his attempts to get capitalism back on track. Libertarianism is the road to revolutionary socialism. Learn your history.

This is very true. FDR co-opted some of the Socialist and Communist party programs and incorporated them into his “New Deal”.

GlennBeckReview said:
ndanielson says:
“Hey GBR, while you’re at it tell us about Francis Fox Piven, and the Cloward-Piven strategy. Why would you hate Beck for bringing that to light???”

Been there, done that too.

I get it; you think placing Dems in a target is an awesome gravitar; it conveys moral bankruptcy.
You enjoy being lied to (by Beck) because you must think it’s “entertaining;” it convey your ignorance.
YOu follow a rodeo clown who is not educated to address the subjects he’s addressing. He’s in over his head and doesn’t mention a “principle” that he doesn’t turn around and take a massive dump on. Then, you gladly hand him your Gadsen flag so he can wipe his ass with it. You’re in to dishonorable hypocrites. I get it; you’re hoodwinked and blissful in your ignorance.

I have more to do than address the plebeians happy in their support for an a-moral charlatan, like continuing my critique of Beck’s Broke. Enjoy that dark cave Beck has guided you into.

Great non answers as usual. Does the cartoon donkey really is intimidating, huh? Former rodeo clown is better than a Beck bashing current liberal clown.

I will take that as an endorsement for Cloward-Piven, and I already know you are in denial about Dunn and Van Jones. Well, were making progress here.

Did you know that my cartoon donkey is a gif that sings kumbayah in 5 languages? Want to know the languages???

Thomas Paine was a Deist, not an atheist.
Thomas Jefferson did play violin, but it gets better. He played violin with an enemy prisoner of war. Jefferson even had Hessian & British prisoners as guests at his home.
In “Thomas Jefferson:A Life,” Willard Sterne Randall wrote, “Among the Hessian prisoners there were good musicians. Young Baron de Geismar played his violin with Jefferson.”

[quote]Farhan, I guess I simply dismissed such a ridiculous question outright. My opinion is that a five star general probably has a lot more love of country than a Chicago community organizer who went to preppy schools on the dollar of someone else through a discrimination process known as affirmative action. A five star general fighting communism is far better than a far left president who invites self proclaimed communists into his own administration, and whose own wife never found anything to be proud about of America in 26 years of her adult life. Such a wife would be an affront to all American loving citizens, especially those that put their lives on the line to protect the constitution.

Your turn: What do you think of a president whose wife was never proud of America in her 26 years as an adult, and that has openly stated that he does not like the Constitution? Could such a man uphold it as he swore to?[/quote]

Wait, I’m still trying to figure this out.

So, what you’re telling me is that because Eisenhower was a five star general and thus probably “loved” his country way more than Obama, he’s perfectly entitled to have tax rates of over 90%?! A tax rate the supposed socialist-marxist-communist Obama could never ever dream of reaching under this current political climate?

Don’t kid yourself. You and all the other teabaggers, just like with the founding fathers, would absolutely despise Eisenhower you had any clue about the things he did. He was for massive taxation of the rich, and he was for massive spending too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

Huh. How about that? And how do I know that you teabaggers would hate him? Because there was a guy named Joseph McCarthy and he was pretty much a proto-tea bagger. You may want to read up on him and see if his beliefs match with your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#McCarthy_and_Eisenhower

Oh, and to top it off, Eisenhower supported universal healthcare!

http://www.edrapp.com/2010/01/the-presidents-on-health-care.html

Now, to answer your questions. How do I feel that the President’s wife said ony recently she was proud of her country? Um, I don’t give a shit? Why do I care that the President’s WIFE said something like that? Seriously, what relevance does it have? It’s one thing if the President said that, but even then I really, truly don’t care how many U.S. flag lapel pins he can fit on his coat and how fast he can say “God bless America!” in under a minute. You teabaggers care way too much about optics and hardly care about actual policy. Obama has created more jobs in one year than Bush did in eight. I’ll gladly take a supposed communist president who actually improves our economy instead of some douchebag ‘patriot’ who likes to play cowboy and goes ahead and destroys it with his disastrous policies.

ndanielson says:
“Great non answers as usual.”

Only because you didn’t click on the hot link I provided. “done that too” is a link to my explanation that Beck’s idea of gov’t-free economics is the road to socialism.

I’m not in denial about Dunn or Van Jones. Beck has lied through his teeth about Van Jones EVERY TIME HE TALKS ABOUT HIM. You’re just unwilling or unable to hear the truth. I know a great way to avoid finding out the truth there Mr. It’s O-OK to put donkeys in a target Danielson, ethical pygmy, don’t click on the links I provide.

bob_bobber said:
[quote]Farhan, I guess I simply dismissed such a ridiculous question outright. My opinion is that a five star general probably has a lot more love of country than a Chicago community organizer who went to preppy schools on the dollar of someone else through a discrimination process known as affirmative action. A five star general fighting communism is far better than a far left president who invites self proclaimed communists into his own administration, and whose own wife never found anything to be proud about of America in 26 years of her adult life. Such a wife would be an affront to all American loving citizens, especially those that put their lives on the line to protect the constitution.

Your turn: What do you think of a president whose wife was never proud of America in her 26 years as an adult, and that has openly stated that he does not like the Constitution? Could such a man uphold it as he swore to?[/quote]

Wait, I’m still trying to figure this out.

So, what you’re telling me is that because Eisenhower was a five star general and thus probably “loved” his country way more than Obama, he’s perfectly entitled to have tax rates of over 90%?! A tax rate the supposed socialist-marxist-communist Obama could never ever dream of reaching under this current political climate?

Don’t kid yourself. You and all the other teabaggers, just like with the founding fathers, would absolutely despise Eisenhower you had any clue about the things he did. He was for massive taxation of the rich, and he was for massive spending too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

Huh. How about that? And how do I know that you teabaggers would hate him? Because there was a guy named Joseph McCarthy and he was pretty much a proto-tea bagger. You may want to read up on him and see if his beliefs match with your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#McCarthy_and_Eisenhower

Oh, and to top it off, Eisenhower supported universal healthcare!

http://www.edrapp.com/2010/01/the-presidents-on-health-care.html

Now, to answer your questions. How do I feel that the President’s wife said ony recently she was proud of her country? Um, I don’t give a shit? Why do I care that the President’s WIFE said something like that? Seriously, what relevance does it have? It’s one thing if the President said that, but even then I really, truly don’t care how many U.S. flag lapel pins he can fit on his coat and how fast he can say “God bless America!” in under a minute. You teabaggers care way too much about optics and hardly care about actual policy. Obama has created more jobs in one year than Bush did in eight. I’ll gladly take a supposed communist president who actually improves our economy instead of some douchebag ‘patriot’ who likes to play cowboy and goes ahead and destroys it with his disastrous policies.

Okay. You win. 5 star general bad, community organizer good. Like I say “the left and its heroes”. Wow. Gotcha.

But did you miss this: Ike actually lowered it to 91% from Truman’s 92% when republicans won the house and Senate in ‘52? The Senate was led by Senator Richard Russell, leader of the conservative coalition, and that same year little known Barry Goldwater was elected to the Senate having beat out Ernest William McFarland. In 1964, after the assassination of JFK, LBJ lowered the TMR to 77%. Nixon then took the TMR from 77% to 70%. How about some of the left’s other heroes, I’ll mostly cut and paste my other post, because I’m lazy:

Take a look at the heroes of the left. Che, Clinton, Kennedy, Sharpton, Jackson, Hollywood, Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Michelle 0bama, B-HO, Behar, Maddow, Mehar. Anyone down with bashing America, its founding, its traditions. the military, individual responsibility, the flag, patriotism, its institutions, Christmas, Christians. Such great Americans.

Tax cheats, socialists, communists, rapists, and adulterers, to round it out.

Dog murderers, drug addicted pop stars, calling women ho’s and bitches, cop killers, hollywood skanks, pornography, and liberal elites with pedigrees and resumes from ivy league liberal arts colleges with daddy’s money, community organizers who “work for the little guy” for “social justice” cheered on by communist loving tenured professors, who have never had a job outside of government or academia. Yeah right.

McCarthy has been vindicated, as the the proof has surface that the USSR was heavily into FDRs administration, but I’d expect you to be unaware or in denial, but hey…. The little court packin’ fool, huh, cupcake?

Enjoy your heroes, clown. And just for giggles, what right does the left have to 90% of anyone’s income?

GlennBeckReview said:
ndanielson says:“Great non answers as usual.” Only because you didn’t click on the hot link I provided. “done that too” is a link to my explanation that Beck’s idea of gov’t-free economics is the road to socialism. I’m not in denial about Dunn or Van Jones. Beck has lied through his teeth about Van Jones EVERY TIME HE TALKS ABOUT HIM. You’re just unwilling or unable to hear the truth. I know a great way to avoid finding out the truth there Mr. It’s O-OK to put donkeys in a target Danielson, ethical pygmy, don’t click on the links I provide.

lied about van jones? how please be brief

GlennBeckReview said:
ndanielson says:
“Great non answers as usual.”

Only because you didn’t click on the hot link I provided. “done that too” is a link to my explanation that Beck’s idea of gov’t-free economics is the road to socialism.

I’m not in denial about Dunn or Van Jones. Beck has lied through his teeth about Van Jones EVERY TIME HE TALKS ABOUT HIM. You’re just unwilling or unable to hear the truth. I know a great way to avoid finding out the truth there Mr. It’s O-OK to put donkeys in a target Danielson, ethical pygmy, don’t click on the links I provide.

Okay deny Van Jones. I believe what I have seen.

Anita Dunn, same thing? http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=anita+dunn+mao+seech#q=anita+dunn+mao+speech&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=ivnsfdo&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=GNw0TcnnPI64sQPktOCsBQ&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CEgQqwQwBA&fp=6e586614e6107c47

CPUSA : http://www.cpusa.org/

Soros?

So, sometimes lefties love wiki sometimes not: here is Van Jones OWN WORDS , not mine not Becks: In October 2005 Jones said he was “a rowdy nationalist”[15] before the King verdict was announced, but that by August of that year (1992) he was a communist.[15] …

Or here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-blogger-who-nailed-van-jones/

It’s funny that Jones DOES NOT DENY IT. Why to you, sweet pea???

GlennBeckReview said:
ndanielson says:
“Great non answers as usual.”

Only because you didn’t click on the hot link I provided. “done that too” is a link to my explanation that Beck’s idea of gov’t-free economics is the road to socialism.

I’m not in denial about Dunn or Van Jones. Beck has lied through his teeth about Van Jones EVERY TIME HE TALKS ABOUT HIM. You’re just unwilling or unable to hear the truth. I know a great way to avoid finding out the truth there Mr. It’s O-OK to put donkeys in a target Danielson, ethical pygmy, don’t click on the links I provide.

Is Soros good or bad???

Aren’t you even interested in which 5 languages my donkey speaks?

ndanielson said:
Okay. You win. 5 star general bad, community organizer good. Like I say “the left and its heroes”. Wow. Gotcha.

…wha? I never said that. What are you even babbling about? I like Eisenhower, but that’s based on his policies, not his party. Some of us can differentiate. And I was wondering how teabaggers, who are basically republicans and vote republican, would feel if they knew Eisenhower taxed the rich at a Stalin-envying 90+% rate!

ndanielsonBut did you miss this: Ike actually lowered it to 91% from Truman’s 92% when republicans won the house and Senate in ‘52? The Senate was led by Senator Richard Russell, leader of the conservative coalition, and that same year little known Barry Goldwater was elected to the Senate having beat out Ernest William McFarland. In 1964, after the assassination of JFK, LBJ lowered the TMR to 77%. Nixon then took the TMR from 77% to 70%.

Yes, I read that, but I’m still trying to figure out what the hell you’re trying to say. Eisenhower lowered the rate from 92% to 91%? And that one percent decrease is a massive difference? That’s the difference between socialism and true capitalism? And somehow you think this is some brilliant ‘gotcha’ moment?

ndanielsonHow about some of the left’s other heroes, I’ll mostly cut and paste my other post, because I’m lazy:

Take a look at the heroes of the left. Che, Clinton, Kennedy, Sharpton, Jackson, Hollywood, Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Michelle 0bama, B-HO, Behar, Maddow, Mehar. Anyone down with bashing America, its founding, its traditions. the military, individual responsibility, the flag, patriotism, its institutions, Christmas, Christians. Such great Americans.

Tax cheats, socialists, communists, rapists, and adulterers, to round it out.

Dog murderers, drug addicted pop stars, calling women ho’s and bitches, cop killers, hollywood skanks, pornography, and liberal elites with pedigrees and resumes from ivy league liberal arts colleges with daddy’s money, community organizers who “work for the little guy” for “social justice” cheered on by communist loving tenured professors, who have never had a job outside of government or academia. Yeah right.

McCarthy has been vindicated, as the the proof has surface that the USSR was heavily into FDRs administration, but I’d expect you to be unaware or in denial, but hey…. The little court packin’ fool, huh, cupcake?

Enjoy your heroes, clown. And just for giggles, what right does the left have to 90% of anyone’s income?

What is this drivel? You must be one of those people that blames anything bad on the left (like Hitler).

I’m glad to see you’re a McCarthy fan. Which further proves my point that you and the rest of the teabagger clan would despise Eisenhower if he were alive today.

As for your last question, what right did Eisenhower have to take 90% of anyone’s income?

GlennBeckReview, did you already deny the Cloward-Piven thing? I forget.

And one last thing, how is Obama any more of a socialist than any of the prior presidents who had tax rates for the rich at higher levels than Obama could ever dream of implementing?

Please use actual legislation in your argument and not some out of context videos or idiotic chain e-mails.

bob_bobber said:
…wha? I never said that. What are you even babbling about? I like Eisenhower, but that’s based on his policies, not his party. Some of us can differentiate. And I was wondering how teabaggers, who are basically republicans and vote republican, would feel if they knew Eisenhower taxed the rich at a Stalin-envying 90+% rate!

Yes, I read that, but I’m still trying to figure out what the hell you’re trying to say. Eisenhower lowered the rate from 92% to 91%? And that one percent decrease is a massive difference? That’s the difference between socialism and true capitalism? And somehow you think this is some brilliant ‘gotcha’ moment?

What is this drivel? You must be one of those people that blames anything bad on the left (like Hitler).

I’m glad to see you’re a McCarthy fan. Which further proves my point that you and the rest of the teabagger clan would despise Eisenhower if he were alive today.

As for your last question, what right did Eisenhower have to take 90% of anyone’s income?

IT’S WHAT THE MARGINAL TAX RATES OF THE TIME WERE! Clown. HE INHERITED 92% AND LOWERED IT TO 91%, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK BARACK IS MAGIC, Ike wasn’t HE NEEDED A CONGRESS TO ENACT ANYTHING, ANYWAY. GENIUS. wow. Clown.

If you weren’t so busy bobbin’ you’d know. Clown. Are you knob bobbin’?

bob_bobber said:
What is this drivel? You must be one of those people that blames anything bad on the left (like Hitler).

Hitler blamed the left!? Who knew? Hitler WAS the left you clown. His economic engine was socialism, and crony capitalism. Clown.

You think a community organizer makes a better president than a five star general, I get it. Bite me, clown. Enjoy your heroes. They suck if you ask me. Celebrate them.

ndanielson said:
IT’S WHAT THE MARGINAL TAX RATES OF THE TIME WERE! Clown. HE INHERITED 92% AND LOWERED IT TO 91%, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK BARACK IS MAGIC, Ike wasn’t HE NEEDED A CONGRESS TO ENACT ANYTHING, ANYWAY. GENIUS. wow. Clown.

Who cares if he inherited it? He never spoke of lowering tax rates either, at least not until the budget was balanced (this was back when Republicans were practical and realized that you can’t close the deficit by simply cutting spending).

The point is, his rates were still almost THREE times higher than what Obama’s rates are now. The country didn’t suddenly collapse during those times and rich people didn’t threaten to move to China or whatever. So I guess what I’m asking is why you idiots think that Obama is any more of a socialist when he’s FACTUALLY significantly to the right of every administration from Wilson to Carter?

ndanielson said:
Hitler blamed the left!? Who knew? Hitler WAS the left you clown. His economic engine was socialism, and crony capitalism. Clown.

Sigh. You have no clue what socialism is, do you? Let me guess, because the Nazi’s were National Socialists, right? You have been watching way too much Glenn Beck, sir. Hiter despised communism. Read a goddamn history book.

ndanielson said:
You think a community organizer makes a better president than a five star general, I get it. Bite me, clown. Enjoy your heroes. They suck if you ask me. Celebrate them.

If you agree to stop putting words in my mouth, I won’t make fun of you for putting testicles in yours.

bob_bobber said:
And one last thing, how is Obama any more of a socialist than any of the prior presidents who had tax rates for the rich at higher levels than Obama could ever dream of implementing?

Please use actual legislation in your argument and not some out of context videos or idiotic chain e-mails.

Do tax rates start at zero at the beginning of every presidency??? Who knew???

ndanielson said:
Do tax rates start at zero at the beginning of every presidency??? Who knew???

….

So what tax proposals has Obama offered?

bob_bobber said:
Sigh. You have no clue what socialism is, do you? Let me guess, because the Nazi’s were National Socialists, right? You have been watching way too much Glenn Beck, sir. Hiter despised communism. Read a goddamn history book.

If you agree to stop putting words in my mouth, I won’t make fun of you for putting testicles in yours.

Hitler despised the communiSTS, cupcake. Read yours.

bob_bobber said:
Who cares if he inherited it? He never spoke of lowering tax rates either, at least not until the budget was balanced (this was back when Republicans were practical and realized that you can’t close the deficit by simply cutting spending).

The point is, his rates were still almost THREE times higher than what Obama’s rates are now. The country didn’t suddenly collapse during those times and rich people didn’t threaten to move to China or whatever. So I guess what I’m asking is why you idiots think that Obama is any more of a socialist when he’s FACTUALLY significantly to the right of every administration from Wilson to Carter?

If 0bama could get away with raising the MTR to 90%, he would. His dad is on record as saying that taxing 100% of the rich is okay. Maybe you missed that?

bob_bobber said:
….

So what tax proposals has Obama offered?

Hitler also played the class envy card to a “T”, as in those evil banker Jews. As does the president and his clowns from academia.

0bama is also into letting the unelected do his bidding through the EPA to tax and cripple business. How is that for a tax proposal, clown?

ndanielson said:
Hitler despised the communiSTS, cupcake. Read yours.

Uh…so he hated communiSTS, but loved communiSM?

ndanielsonIf 0bama could get away with raising the MTR to 90%, he would. His dad is on record as saying that taxing 100% of the rich is okay. Maybe you missed that?

Ah, of course. Thought crimes. As expected.

But let me ask you, does it really matter in any way what obama supposedly desires to do in his own mind, as long as he doesn’t actually succeed doing it reality?

This is of course assuming that he really did wish he could tax 100% of the rich, but sadly most of us don’t have the power of telepathy. Apparently teabaggers have abilities that transcend mere mortals. Who knew?

ndanielson said:
0bama is also into letting the unelected do his bidding through the EPA to tax and cripple business. How is that for a tax proposal, clown?

I’m gonna ignore that hitler stuff since you seem to be a goddamn conspiracy theorist who has no clue about history or ideology.

But regarding this, considering that like I said previously, that Obama is such an enemy of capitalism, it’s funny how he’s created more jobs in one year than Bush did in 8. Funny how that works. Or maybe he’s trying to create millions of jobs so that he can kill them all later!

Oh, and Bush’s track record was mentioned in that OBVIOUSLY liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Geithner, Tom Daschle, tax cheat, leftist. 0bama, background unknown, socialist. Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Bernie Sanders, communist. Roman Polanski, leftist darling “artist”, rapist. BJ clinton impeached serial adulterer, accused serial rapist, perjuror, suborned his staff. Do I need to go on about the left’s heroes????Want to know about the pedophile in office???

You dont really need all the names and instances of your heroes do you???

bob_bobber said:
Uh…so he hated communiSTS, but loved communiSM?

Ah, of course. Thought crimes. As expected.

But let me ask you, does it really matter in any way what obama supposedly desires to do in his own mind, as long as he doesn’t actually succeed doing it reality?

This is of course assuming that he really did wish he could tax 100% of the rich, but sadly most of us don’t have the power of telepathy. Apparently teabaggers have abilities that transcend mere mortals. Who knew?

Where did I say he loved communists, cupcake? I think that was you?

Thought crimes???? How ’bout the lefts legislation to pass and create more HATE CRIME LEGISLATION, Clown.

Keep diggin’, bozo.

bob_bobber said:
I’m gonna ignore that hitler stuff since you seem to be a goddamn conspiracy theorist who has no clue about history or ideology.

But regarding this, considering that like I said previously, that Obama is such an enemy of capitalism, it’s funny how he’s created more jobs in one year than Bush did in 8. Funny how that works. Or maybe he’s trying to create millions of jobs so that he can kill them all later!

Oh, and Bush’s track record was mentioned in that OBVIOUSLY liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

What part of government do you oppose, and which news outlets oppose ANYTHING the benevolent government proposes? Clown.

0bama created MORE JOBS??? Wow. And unemployment is 5% like is was under Bush? In DC and in Government. Right???

Oh, yes the left can’t be trusted. Like how the Texas board of education wants to diminish and/or remove the significance of Thomas Jefferson because his beliefs didn’t fall perfectly in line with the church of teabaggery.

ndanielson said:
0bama created MORE JOBS??? Wow. And unemployment is 5% like is was under Bush? In DC and in Government. Right???

Yes, Obama created more jobs than Bush. It doesn’t matter if Bush’s unemployment rate at first was low, because the rate of job growth was so horrendous. Teabagger.

ndanielson said:
What part of government do you oppose, and which news outlets oppose ANYTHING the benevolent government proposes? Clown.

Besides the military, what government bureaucracy and expansion and programs do you oppose? Why do we have a USDA? If a business is selling tainted product, how long would they get away with that one??? Why not school vouchers, cupcake? If we spend 7-8 thousand per pupil, why not force them to spend it, but ON A SCHOOL of their choice THAT TEACHES? How did we get unelected EPA officials that can run roughshod over business to levy fines and taxes???

bob_bobber said:
Oh, yes the left can’t be trusted. Like how the Texas board of education wants to diminish and/or remove the significance of Thomas Jefferson because his beliefs didn’t fall perfectly in line with the church of teabaggery.

Yes, Obama created more jobs than Bush. It doesn’t matter if Bush’s unemployment rate at first was low, because the rate of job growth was so horrendous. Teabagger.

The left can’t be trusted. Look at your heroes again. They are the ones who despise this country and want to “fundamentally change” it. Or did you forget that speech, clown? When can we expect the oceans to recede, clown?

bob_bobber said:
[quote]Farhan, I guess I simply dismissed such a ridiculous question outright. My opinion is that a five star general probably has a lot more love of country than a Chicago community organizer who went to preppy schools on the dollar of someone else through a discrimination process known as affirmative action. A five star general fighting communism is far better than a far left president who invites self proclaimed communists into his own administration, and whose own wife never found anything to be proud about of America in 26 years of her adult life. Such a wife would be an affront to all American loving citizens, especially those that put their lives on the line to protect the constitution.

Your turn: What do you think of a president whose wife was never proud of America in her 26 years as an adult, and that has openly stated that he does not like the Constitution? Could such a man uphold it as he swore to?[/quote]

Wait, I’m still trying to figure this out.

So, what you’re telling me is that because Eisenhower was a five star general and thus probably “loved” his country way more than Obama, he’s perfectly entitled to have tax rates of over 90%?! A tax rate the supposed socialist-marxist-communist Obama could never ever dream of reaching under this current political climate?

Don’t kid yourself. You and all the other teabaggers, just like with the founding fathers, would absolutely despise Eisenhower you had any clue about the things he did. He was for massive taxation of the rich, and he was for massive spending too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

Huh. How about that? And how do I know that you teabaggers would hate him? Because there was a guy named Joseph McCarthy and he was pretty much a proto-tea bagger. You may want to read up on him and see if his beliefs match with your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#McCarthy_and_Eisenhower

Oh, and to top it off, Eisenhower supported universal healthcare!

http://www.edrapp.com/2010/01/the-presidents-on-health-care.html

Now, to answer your questions. How do I feel that the President’s wife said ony recently she was proud of her country? Um, I don’t give a shit? Why do I care that the President’s WIFE said something like that? Seriously, what relevance does it have? It’s one thing if the President said that, but even then I really, truly don’t care how many U.S. flag lapel pins he can fit on his coat and how fast he can say “God bless America!” in under a minute. You teabaggers care way too much about optics and hardly care about actual policy. Obama has created more jobs in one year than Bush did in eight. I’ll gladly take a supposed communist president who actually improves our economy instead of some douchebag ‘patriot’ who likes to play cowboy and goes ahead and destroys it with his disastrous policies.

And why would you make a ridiculous assumption like that. Did Douglas MacArthur respect and love our form of government? Obviously not, that’s why Truman had to fire him.

ndanielson said:
The left can’t be trusted. Look at your heroes again. They are the ones who despise this country and want to “fundamentally change” it. Or did you forget that speech, clown? When can we expect the oceans to recede, clown?

From Teddy Roosevelt all the way up to the end of Jimmy Carter, the country was very very progressive. That’s almost a hundred years of U.S. history that only recently with the Reagan revolution started changing. So it’s actually you teabaggers that want the country to fundamentally change, not the other way around, ironically enough.

armwood said:
And why would you make a ridiculous assumption like that. Did Douglas MacArthur respect and love our form of government? Obviously not, that’s why Truman had to fire him.

Did Douglass MacArthur love and defend the Constitution??? Does 0bama??? Listen and see what you think of 0bama’s opinion of the Constitution:

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

bob_bobber said:
From Teddy Roosevelt all the way up to the end of Jimmy Carter, the country was very very progressive. That’s almost a hundred years of U.S. history that only recently with the Reagan revolution started changing. So it’s actually you teabaggers that want the country to fundamentally change, not the other way around, ironically enough.

Again, did you miss his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU to fundamentally transform America? His own words, cupcake. Not mine.

bob_bobber said:
From Teddy Roosevelt all the way up to the end of Jimmy Carter, the country was very very progressive. That’s almost a hundred years of U.S. history that only recently with the Reagan revolution started changing. So it’s actually you teabaggers that want the country to fundamentally change, not the other way around, ironically enough.

Actually, cupcake we’d like our country back. Back from who??? Your types of heroes is who, cupcake. The ones that control the political debate in this country and ALL BUT ONE news outlet. Clown. Other than Fox, who is it that MERELY QUESTION what this administration is up to??? C’mon sweet pea, enlighten me.

ndanielson said:
Actually, cupcake we’d like our country back. Back from who??? Your types of heroes is who, cupcake. The ones that control the political debate in this country and ALL BUT ONE news outlet. Clown. Other than Fox, who is it that MERELY QUESTION what this administration is up to??? C’mon sweet pea, enlighten me.

Name ONE news outlet that isn’t down with EVERYTHING liberals want to do in this country.

bob_bobber said:
Uh…so he hated communiSTS, but loved communiSM? Ah, of course. Thought crimes. As expected. But let me ask you, does it really matter in any way what obama supposedly desires to do in his own mind, as long as he doesn’t actually succeed doing it reality? This is of course assuming that he really did wish he could tax 100% of the rich, but sadly most of us don’t have the power of telepathy. Apparently teabaggers have abilities that transcend mere mortals. Who knew?

Ahh, time for the fallacy of two things that hate each other are opposites. They can also be rivals. Two drug gangs are likely to be almost exactly alike in what they do and believe, and yet will hate each other and go to war.

So it was with Hitler and Communist Russia. Two police states vying for control over the same land. But both totalitarian states. The big lie is there is some significant difference between two countries where the jackbooted thugs control everything in the economy and the lives of the people. Just because one pretends that corporations remain private. It is a paper distinction without a difference.

Wow, over 500 posts. Maher is awsome.

Just_MC said:
So it was with Hitler and Communist Russia. Two police states vying for control over the same land. But both totalitarian states. The big lie is there is some significant difference between two countries where the jackbooted thugs control everything in the economy and the lives of the people. Just because one pretends that corporations remain private. It is a paper distinction without a difference

Would you argue that corporate control is any better than government control?

ndanielson says:
“Does 0bama??? Listen and see what you think of 0bama’s opinion of the Constitution:”

Beck plays that recording all the time. Obama thinks that the Constitution did not address distributive aspects of American life, and that is true; it does not. FDR was thinking along the same lines. I doesn’t mean that the President doesn’t love what the Constitution achieved, he is just pointing out its shortcoming.

So the Democrat targeting Danielson is a Beckerhead which explains his endless, self-righteous idiocies. They come from the deceitful yellow propagandist, Glenn Beck. The only people who do not readily grasp that Glenn Beck is a bald faced liar are his loyal fans who are too ignorant to comprehend when Beck lies and don’t want face up to the truth. Glenn Beck lies about Van Jones, about Obama, about telling the truth even! The latter makes Glenn Beck a hypocrite, not just that one time though, but over and over again, Beck demonstrates that he’s a blatant hypocrite!

Beck took one college course on the history of religion and dropped out. He has spent his entire life working hard and preparing to be a huge radio star, not studying political theory or political science. Beck is not much more than an amazing performance artist and an extremely convincing demagogue with ideas that Republican, President Eisenhower considered “stupid” in his days as President. Glenn Beck demonstrates repeatedly that he has virtually no understanding of political language or ideas. Beck is a yellow propagandist who comes across as sincerely interested in the country but his motivations are “are, and have always been, money and fame. If Beck has a true religion, it’s not Patriotism. It’s not Mormonism. It’s cross-platform self-marketing.”

ndanielson said:
Hitler also played the class envy card to a “T”, as in those evil banker Jews. As does the president and his clowns from academia.

Teabaggers are morons. Republican constituents are usually ignorant of truth, because they hope to discredit facts that they don’t like, but there is hope for the ignorant, because they can learn. Then there are the stupid neocons, whom are just not educated, and are “willingly ignorant” – not wanting to learn and then there are the moronic Republicans – those incapable of learning – no hope, indoctrinated in their ignorance whom just don’t have the brain capacity or ability to reason or learn – they are the moronic. This is whom you represent and I say this with great regret, because you will spread your ignorance like a virus without hope of moving up to stupid or ignorant – you’ll always be a moron. A child left way behind.

ndanielson said:
Name ONE news outlet that isn’t down with EVERYTHING liberals want to do in this country.

So if you fear the rest of the world is liberal (and that is just your paranoia), I’m sure you can name the one propaganda station that is misleading its blind faith masses like Goebbels in hate and fear mongering against that which it doesn’t understand. For 204 years, the US media as been, what you teabaggers want to call “liberal” or mainstream elitists. Doesn’t that little nugget suggest to you, through all or our greatness – only when a propaganda station came along during Reagan’s deal with the devil (Murdoch) and the devil’s side-kick, (Jerry Falwell) to create the GOP indoctrination network (i.e., Jesus Camp through Liberty College Brainwashing Network). Fox is not a news outlet – it’s a brainwashing function of the little minds. What Pravda was to the Soviets, what Goebbels was to the Nazis. It’s hate and fear mongering isn’t echoed, because it is wrong in its purpose – particularly in a society of uneducated cult followers that the RNC has become. Hate and fear based, blind religious indoctrinated belief, discrediting science, history, facts and truth as liberal bias – creating a “us against them” mentality against its own citizens. Why is “Fox” alone on this? Not because everyone else is liberal – that’s the right-wing nuzi paranoia, but because they are using their hate and fear rhetoric to frightened an intellectually challenged base that is part KKK, part religious nutwing, part big business and part imperialists – a dangerous mix, using our freedoms against us.

ndanielson said:
0bama is also into letting the unelected do his bidding through the EPA to tax and cripple business. How is that for a tax proposal, clown?

You’re incredibly moronic. Why do you celebrate this so?

ndanielson said:
Geithner, Tom Daschle, tax cheat, leftist. 0bama, background unknown, socialist. Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Bernie Sanders, communist. Roman Polanski, leftist darling “artist”, rapist. BJ clinton impeached serial adulterer, accused serial rapist, perjuror, suborned his staff. Do I need to go on about the left’s heroes????Want to know about the pedophile in office???

You dont really need all the names and instances of your heroes do you???

You’re a Palinista from Glennbeckistan!!

Bill was spot on. Teabagers do not comprehend what the read, when they read. They betray themselves by repeating the idiocy of Beck, Hannity, Palin, O’Reilly and the other misguided Czars of distortion at Fox and AM Hate Talk Radio.

When labeling and trying to discredit Democrats and the best you can do is repeat the moronic and misguided echos of Fox, you know it’s an uphill battle because you’re not dealing with a reasonable person, but a brainwashed sheep. Their hate and fear mongering of the past two years of “socialism”, “fascism”, Marxism, communism, et. al. – is so misguided they get laughed at. Firstly, the extreme paranoia that came with the slurs only since President Obama took office are absurd and secondly, the ridiculous notion that the Democrats are ALL THESE things at once. Moronic is the only way to describe the idiots that support the Teabagers and GOP following such nonsequiter rants of stupidity.

*they read (not proofed for expedience).

lol

ndanielson said:
Besides the military, what government bureaucracy and expansion and programs do you oppose? Why do we have a USDA? If a business is selling tainted product, how long would they get away with that one??? Why not school vouchers, cupcake? If we spend 7-8 thousand per pupil, why not force them to spend it, but ON A SCHOOL of their choice THAT TEACHES? How did we get unelected EPA officials that can run roughshod over business to levy fines and taxes???

Because as proven by the deregulation of Banks and other industries (Oil = BP Gulf spill); Bush’s gift to the coal burning industry to repeal Nixon’s Clean Air-Act from the 70s for financial contributions to the GOP etc., etc. Polluting our rivers and air is fine with those that want to do it, but then you end up paying for it in undrinkable water, uninhabitable air and living conditions (think LA during their horrendous smog decades – now 50% cleaner air, better health, etc.). Cause and effect.

valkyrie101 said:
Would you argue that corporate control is any better than government control?

I’d answer but I don’t know how you define “corporate control” and “government control.”

When government controls every aspect of how business is done, they can pick winners and losers. So the corporations that survive will be the ones who most successfully buy off the government regulators and politicians. Usually this means the biggest corporations. So in this case, corporate control and government control overlap heavily, because the two are completely in bed with each other. You don’t have “corporate control’ OR “government control.” You have a cronyarchy of government AND corporate control.

In this scenario, living standards fall, as costs and quality no longer drive the winners and losers–political sway and muscle do. If you want a good example of this, take a look at healthcare in the US, both before AND after Obamacare. Both are overly regulated, and the huge guys like United Healthcare benefit, and their potential competition and the consumer lose.

Or look at a great example from a recent Stossel show. A woman who was good at braiding hair wanted to start a business (in Louisiana I think.) By law, she needed to pay thousands in tuition and attend a 2-year beauty school to get certified by the state. Except, none of the schools even taught hair braiding. There was NO value to her following the state rules. Except to the cartel of beauty schools and existing hair salons, who had gotten in bed with the lawmakers, and succeeded in making it VERY expensive for anyone to compete with them. Bet your last nickel the lawmakers got some nice contributions for setting up these barriers to competition. Who loses? Consumers, and aspiring entrepreneurs.

By the way, when this is done with hair salons in Louisiana, the cartels can get away with it unless you go elsewhere to do business. But when government and big moneyed interests do the same thing in industries like carmaking, the result is different. It just gets offshored to a place where those increased costs don’t exist. And then a bunch of American workers lose their jobs.

So, when government is able to control and dictate so many aspects of business, the two get in bed to make themselves rich in the short term, at great expense to the citizens in the short term and long term alike.

But when government is limited to the power to enforce private contracts in business, and to prosecute fraud, it doesn’t dictate all the rules and terms, ad it doesn’t pick the winners and losers. It only punishes the liars and cheats who break their contracts, and it enforces collection of damages for victims of fraud and broken contracts. But again, it doesn’t set up rules that favor its cronies. And the corporations are left to compete with each other to please customers in order to thrive (rather than buying political favors to thrive) . And the result is that consumers benefit. Living standards rise as the cost and quality of goods and services improve.

So, I see it differently from “corporate control” versus “government control.” When government overreaches, it dictates all the terms of how business is dones, and we have crooked government in bed with business, robbing the citizens together.

When government is properly limited, it is only a referee of private contracts. So it doesn’t have the same power to pick winners and losers in the market. And businesses must resort to pleasing customers rather than politicians. In this scenario, government control is over punishing those who break their word. Business controls what promises it makes, to business partners and consumers.

James Gregory Backus said:
Because as proven by the deregulation of Banks and other industries (Oil = BP Gulf spill); Bush’s gift to the coal burning industry to repeal Nixon’s Clean Air-Act from the 70s for financial contributions to the GOP etc., etc. Polluting our rivers and air is fine with those that want to do it, but then you end up paying for it in undrinkable water, uninhabitable air and living conditions (think LA during their horrendous smog decades – now 50% cleaner air, better health, etc.). Cause and effect.

By the way, pollution is a good thing to discuss. When government dictates the terms of how business is conducted, it removes the LIABILITY of the corporations. Government shouldn’t tell you how to make your oil rig safe. Not only on principle, but because it doesn’t know. WHO REALLY KNOWS? The answer is that those who run rigs safely should prosper. Those who foul the entire Gulf of Mexico should be liable for the damages. BP had a $75 million CAP on their liability. What the F#ck for? This is an example of government overreach. Government has no business capping that liability. Just like it has no business telling them how to drill. If you believe the people own some piece of land, then you can auction off the rights to drill the land, let people drill as they please, and enforce collection of damages if they make a mess. But the only reason BP wasn’t limited to the $75 million liability cap is some combination of their willingness to pay more and government breaking its own rules about twisting their arm. It’s all dirtyy, and all subject to political whim.

Similarly, the bank bailout is a similar sellout of the citizen. The politicians capped the crooked banks’ liability by criminally putting the risk for loans on the taxpayer. It is the banks’ job to manage risk. The ones who lose go out of business and lose their depositors’ and shareholders’ money. In a private market, they will need to buy insurance and manage risk or people won’t bank with them. Instead, we have a cartel with the Federal Reserve at the center, and the banks get rich robbing us BECAUSE of the their relationship with the regulators. We don’t need a bigger cop. He’ll just get co-opted like the last cop did. We need to force businesses to operate without a net. When they do that, they WILL manage their risk.

A last point is the crime of the LLC.. When a business can limit liability of its officers and owners, it can pay money in salaries while making an economic time bomb. For instance, imagine the scenario of selling insurance policies and just paying all the money out in salaries. People get rich until the claims come in. The people who own and operate a company like this should be at risk of losing it all. Their houses, cars, all their property, etc, and should be CRIMINALLY liable for fraud. Again, the government regulation CREATED this artificial limitation of liability where none should exist. Because if you look closely at what happens, the crooks almost always get out with their golden parachutes. The bank disaster should have seen a lot of people go to jail. Instead, they got even richer and the taxpayer is pushed further into bankruptcy.

Just_MC said:
I’d answer but I don’t know how you define “corporate control” and “government control.” When government controls every aspect of how business is done, they can pick winners and losers. So the corporations that survive will be the ones who most successfully buy off the government regulators and politicians. Usually this means the biggest corporations. So in this case, corporate control and government control overlap heavily, because the two are completely in bed with each other. You don’t have “corporate control’ OR “government control.” You have a cronyarchy of government AND corporate control. In this scenario, living standards fall, as costs and quality no longer drive the winners and losers–political sway and muscle do. If you want a good example of this, take a look at healthcare in the US, both before AND after Obamacare. Both are overly regulated, and the huge guys like United Healthcare benefit, and their potential competition and the consumer lose. Or look at a great example from a recent Stossel show. A woman who was good at braiding hair wanted to start a business (in Louisiana I think.) By law, she needed to pay thousands in tuition and attend a 2-year beauty school to get certified by the state. Except, none of the schools even taught hair braiding. There was NO value to her following the state rules. Except to the cartel of beauty schools and existing hair salons, who had gotten in bed with the lawmakers, and succeeded in making it VERY expensive for anyone to compete with them. Bet your last nickel the lawmakers got some nice contributions for setting up these barriers to competition. Who loses? Consumers, and aspiring entrepreneurs. By the way, when this is done with hair salons in Louisiana, the cartels can get away with it unless you go elsewhere to do business. But when government and big moneyed interests do the same thing in industries like carmaking, the result is different. It just gets offshored to a place where those increased costs don’t exist. And then a bunch of American workers lose their jobs. So, when government is able to control and dictate so many aspects of business, the two get in bed to make themselves rich in the short term, at great expense to the citizens in the short term and long term alike. But when government is limited to the power to enforce private contracts in business, and to prosecute fraud, it doesn’t dictate all the rules and terms, ad it doesn’t pick the winners and losers. It only punishes the liars and cheats who break their contracts, and it enforces collection of damages for victims of fraud and broken contracts. But again, it doesn’t set up rules that favor its cronies. And the corporations are left to compete with each other to please customers in order to thrive (rather than buying political favors to thrive) . And the result is that consumers benefit. Living standards rise as the cost and quality of goods and services improve. So, I see it differently from “corporate control” versus “government control.” When government overreaches, it dictates all the terms of how business is dones, and we have crooked government in bed with business, robbing the citizens together. When government is properly limited, it is only a referee of private contracts. So it doesn’t have the same power to pick winners and losers in the market. And businesses must resort to pleasing customers rather than politicians. In this scenario, government control is over punishing those who break their word. Business controls what promises it makes, to business partners and consumers.</blockquote

That was an excellent post, MC. We agree that there needs to be some regulation of private corporate interests, but not too much regulation. That is the debate.

oops…

That was an excellent post, MC. We agree that there needs to be some regulation of private corporate interests, but not too much regulation. That is the debate.

armwood said:
This is very true. FDR co-opted some of the Socialist and Communist party programs and incorporated them into his “New Deal”.

And FDR managed to give us the longest depression the country ever endured. It ended when we went to war.

armwood said:
And why would you make a ridiculous assumption like that. Did Douglas MacArthur respect and love our form of government? Obviously not, that’s why Truman had to fire him.

Where is your proof the Douglas MacArthur didn’t respect and love our form of government? Was he the only general ever fired by a President? Are you talking through your ass again, Armwood.

RichS said:
And FDR managed to give us the longest depression the country ever endured. It ended when we went to war.

Don’t know (or care) where your head otherwise is at, but to borrow a phrase from one of the wisest men I’ve ever read and listened to: “You have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it’s almost embarrassing to listen to you.”

Maher, Tingles, Sgt. Schultz, Crazy Larry are all noticeably going out of their way to provoke in some kind of perverse competition to be the poster child of the looney left and take the vacant seat Dolbermann vacated…. I’d say there must be big money in it, but that couldnt be possible because they all hate capitalism……

Boy, you all hate it when guys like Maher are right. But I just continue to LOFLADL.

Anyone who uses the term “teabaggers” in that sense and knows what the term means is a scumbag who must be considered intellectually and morally bankrupt. (And I’m fully expecting the idiotic “some other guy said it first so that makes it OK” logic-free argument from you guys, despite that being utterly irrelevant.) This renders their input in such matters worthless, and thus the majority of the vocal Left are eliminated from the conversation, as you were never really engaged in a logical debate anyway. Despicable, hateful little worms, all of you. Now, if there’s actually any Left-leaner still around who gets passed that filter, I can explain to you exactly why Maher’s assertion is absurd, using the Founders’ own words as they clearly intended them, not cherrypicked as the Left does – but I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to chime up and prove you’re not a scumbag like Maher as, this being the Internet with its anonymity, this being an article about uber-scumbag Maher (thus attracting his scumbag fans), and this being Mediaite (which has a very small population of actually-reasonable Left-leaners; not only that, but most semi-regular Leftist posters are *trolls*), it’s highly unlikely there’s a single one of you worth talking to on this subject.

to espo222.  but the Tea Baggers are Racist.  They carry signs depicting President Obama as a “monkey, African jungle dweller and black slave.”  They even called the President a “N” on one sign; and didn’t even spell it correctly.  That is not racist?  President Obama was LEGALLY elected president by the populace and this time, we counted ALL the votes!  He IS the president and the hatred of him is clearly racially motivated.  So accept the “voice of the people” and get over it!  Not agreeing with his policies is your Constitutional right per the first amendment in the Bill of Rights.  But attacking him as an African monkey;  like it or not your ancestors were Ethiopians per anthropological evidence, is racist.  Can you not oppose his agenda without attacking the man or his race?  Ad Hominem Fallacy. Look it up on google.  And yes he does have a birth certificate, born in the State (admitted 1959 after being a territory like Puerto Rico whose citizens vote in our presidential elections) Hawai’i  in 1961.  Get over YOUR hatred.