“I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt so you can see the gun in his pants. That’s — (in black man voice) ‘we’ve got a motherfu**ing problem here?’ Shoot somebody in the foot.”

Put a sock in it, Bill.

Oh, and while we’re here:

“You know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need,” Maher said. “Forget this stuff. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.”

He suggested Obama employ Mafia-like tactics straight from “The Godfather” to get Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to agree to Obama’s plan.

“Get health care done, you know, with or without them,” Maher said. “Make the gang of six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy – he needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.”

You can shut up now, jackwagon.

The right wing loves- the go-to rhetoric for them is ‘wouldn’t it be fun to kill the people we disagree with.’”

When did Maher become a right winger?

EVERY time Leno has this clown on, it becomes an “uncomfortable” situation. I honestly do not understand why they continue to book him. I like Leno, watched his opening monologue and quickly changed the channel so as not to be subjected to Maher’s BS. As a side note: to the liberals, THAT is how you take care of speech you find offensive.

This just shows how out of touch Maher is. Plus he’s probably projecting his own thoughts about killing people he doesn’t like/agree with on everyone else. Sorry Bill, most of us don’t wish those we don’t agree with politically dead…just voted out of office…or their HBO show canceled…

tgk said:
EVERY time Leno has this clown on, it becomes an “uncomfortable” situation.

Duh! That’s the shtick. A slightly more polished Imus ….

crclarkNY said:
This just shows how out of touch Maher is. Plus he’s probably projecting his own thoughts about killing people he doesn’t like/agree with on everyone else. Sorry Bill, most of us don’t wish those we don’t agree with politically dead…just voted out of office…or their HBO show canceled…

I can agree with your comment, but don’t you think the rhetoric of the right is a bit more confrontational, whilst the rhetoric of the left tends to be dismissive?

I think it would fun to kill Bill Maher!!!

Maher is a jerk

knucklehead

Maher is a hate monger himself. He’s a left answer to Ann Coulter.

The Real Royal King said:
I can agree with your comment, but don’t you think the rhetoric of the right is a bit more confrontational, whilst the rhetoric of the left tends to be dismissive?

Have you listened to Ed Schultz or most of the commentators (oops…I mean “journalists”…) on MSNBC lately?

The Real Rabid Kook said:
I can agree with your comment, but don’t you think the rhetoric of the right is a bit more confrontational, whilst the rhetoric of the left tends to be dismissive?

No, Kook. I don’t. Do you? Really?

The Real Royal King said:
don’t you think the rhetoric of the right is a bit more confrontational,

Yes, if you listen to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR etc.

If you have a remote control for you TV…try using it.

You do nothing be repeat Moring Joe and the crew, that is “WHILST” you set on your ass and eat this hate stuff up.

It really is not any different than the KKK, Black Panthers, the Westboro Baptist Church or one of the many left wing groups who have a distorted view of America, in this case FOX and you cannot break from your daily dose of the hate…then you repeat it here.

BatBoy said:
Yes, if you listen to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR etc.

If you have a remote control for you TV…try using it.

You do nothing be repeat Moring Joe and the crew, that is “WHILST” you set on your ass and eat this hate stuff up.

It really is not any different than the KKK, Black Panthers, the Westboro Baptist Church or one of the many left wing groups who have a distorted view of America, in this case FOX and you cannot break from your daily dose of the hate…then you repeat it here.

You’re probably right about “Morning Joe” since I tend to watch it a couple of times a week from about 06:10 to 06:20 Hours, God’s time.

Pablo said:
No, Kook. I don’t. Do you? Really?

Yes, I do, and find them both equally offensive.

Bobby Levit said:
I think it would fun to kill Bill Maher!!!

Bobby…it is not fun to kill anybody. If you do, your life will be changed forever.

If you do think this would be fun, join the Army or Marine Corp. They will give you that chance. Otherwise, my advice is to quit thinking these thoughts.

Maher once again proves he’s an over-rated imbecile. And a punk.

The Real Rabid Kook said:
Yes, I do, and find them both equally offensive.

You find them equally offensive while at the same time you find the right more confrontational? Careful you don’t screw yourself into the ground with all that spinning, Kook.

The Real Royal King said:
I can agree with your comment, but don’t you think the rhetoric of the right is a bit more confrontational, whilst the rhetoric of the left tends to be dismissive?

I think it depends more on momentum in politics as to which side is confrontatuonal or dismissive. The last two years definitely but while Bush was in office up till 2006 the exact opposite was true as was the case with this tragedy.

The Real Royal King said:
Duh! That’s the shtick. A slightly more polished Imus ….

Actually he is a simple sell out. His “schtick” used to be libertarian. Bordering on anarchy. But then he got a fat payoff from uber libtard HBO to spew anti-right pablum.

Not that I’m a fan of the cowboy-hatted lizard…..but Maher couldn’t carry Imus’ worn out old jock.

MediaiteCensorsSux said:
Maher is a hate monger himself. He’s a left answer to Ann Coulter.

Bullshit. Maher lies. You may not agree with Coulter’s stand, but she is at least telling the truth.

The Real Royal King said:
I can agree with your comment, but don’t you think the rhetoric of the right is a bit more confrontational, whilst the rhetoric of the left tends to be dismissive?

It’s only dimissive AFTER the screeching fails.

He makes sense sometimes, but other times I feel he is a bomb thrower.

skyfet said:
He makes sense sometimes, but other times I feel he is a bomb thrower.

He’s politically incorrect, as a profession.

One would think such a “brilliant” man would not be so tone deaf. He speaks to his audience (the whacked out 20% of American lefties) and completely ignores the 80%.

Fortunately, sane and reasonable people think he’s a fricking idiot with a cable “chat” show.

Here, ironically enough, Maher is out foxing even the fox. Fox ran for cover with a shrink explaining how pot made him do it, within minutes, ran with the book list to say oh, he was a marxist. Not wanting to address the substantive issues related to Fox brewed antipathy toward the Federal government in general, and who regularly turns to a 911 truther (Napolitano) as its go to legal expert. If it was not FOX at the heart of it all, they would relish covering every detail, themselves.

VoiceofReason said:
Bullshit. Maher lies. You may not agree with Coulter’s stand, but she is at least telling the truth.

Very true. They are good friends, though, which, there’s something telling about that. Coulter has better material to work with, so she makes it look easy. Maher has to ride that dumb old mule and you only get so much funny out of that shtick.

valkyrie101 said:
Here, ironically enough, Maher is out foxing even the fox. Fox ran for cover with a shrink explaining how pot made him do it, within minutes, ran with the book list to say oh, he was a marxist. Not wanting to address the substantive issues related to Fox brewed antipathy toward the Federal government in general, and who regularly turns to a 911 truther (Napolitano) as its go to legal expert. If it was not FOX at the heart of it all, they would relish covering every detail, themselves.

Could you cite some that stuff, Valk? From what I saw, which admittedly was not a lot, they were pointing out that he’s a nut.

valkyrie101 said:
He’s politically incorrect, as a profession.

Not anymore. He sold out for a fat payday to be a liberal shill on HBO.

timzank said:
One would think such a “brilliant” man would not be so tone deaf. He speaks to his audience (the whacked out 20% of American lefties) and completely ignores the 80%. Fortunately, sane and reasonable people think he’s a fricking idiot with a cable “chat” show.

Cable echo chamber show more like it.

Pablo said:
Could you cite some that stuff, Valk? From what I saw, which admittedly was not a lot, they were pointing out that he’s a nut.

That’s all the Media Matters lies she could remember.

skyfet said:
He makes sense sometimes

Only when he is on hiatus.

VoiceofReason said:
That’s all the Media Matters lies she could remember.

Gosh, of course that too. Maher is not saying that FOX caused this guy to go off. We know very liltle. However, the question, does the FOX anti-federal government slant influence some people to go off? That is a fair question.

What can you say about the likes of Maher? Sad.

The hypocrisy is just mind bending. Maher (and the left) CONSTANTLY attack people they disagrees with, not just on this show but on his. Anyone with an internet connection can dig up violent rhetoric from Democrats, the left, Bill maher and any number of liberal talking heads. Why does he pretend that we’re all mindless idiots? When he asks, “do you read”, my head exploded. He must have meant, “don’t you read left wing propaganda?”

Dronetek said:
The hypocrisy is just mind bending. Maher (and the left) CONSTANTLY attack people they disagrees with, not just on this show but on his. Anyone with an internet connection can dig up violent rhetoric from Democrats, the left, Bill maher and any number of liberal talking heads. Why does he pretend that we’re all mindless idiots? When he asks, “do you read”, my head exploded. He must have meant, “don’t you read left wing propaganda?”

Your droning in denial.

Wouldn’t It Be Fun To Kill The People We Disagree With

Bill Maher said:
The right wing loves- the go-to rhetoric for them is ‘wouldn’t it be fun to kill the people we disagree with.

Really, Bill?

BILL MAHER: Now, speaking of crazy white people, you know about the Truthers? You know who these people are? I had to throw them out of the studio one night. These people who think 9/11 was an inside job, that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. Well, yesterday one of them tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon. Or did he? This sad, he left a, they got him, but you know, he left a rambling, paranoid manifesto on the Internet about how the government was going after his freedom. You know, it’s sad. When we see crazy, senseless deaths like this, we can only ask why, why, why couldn’t it have been Glenn Beck?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/06/bill-maher-wishes-glenn-beck-had-been-killed-pentagon-thursday#ixzz1ApvYpyN2

BILL MAHER: Now, speaking of crazy white people, you know about the Truthers? You know who these people are? I had to throw them out of the studio one night. These people who think 9/11 was an inside job, that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. Well, yesterday one of them tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon. Or did he? This sad, he left a, they got him, but you know, he left a rambling, paranoid manifesto on the Internet about how the government was going after his freedom.

About the Pentagon shooter; Update: Stop playing games, MSM. John Patrick Bedell was a registered Democrat

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/05/about-the-pentagon-shooter/

Val says:

Your droning in denial.

No, he’s right, it appears you are the one in denial. No fear, in the age of Google, the proof is out there forever.

Bobby Levit said:
I think it would fun to kill Bill Maher!!!

Thank you for proving his point douchebag.

It’s kinda funny how the right on this board has the same complaints/comments about Maher as the Left on this board has about Beck/Limbaugh… see you guys you really are all the same..

Well for a little balance let’s take a look at what the “COMPASSIONATE” Potato Salad Brains are tweeting these days eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxgJKNpjSNI&feature=player_embedded

valkyrie101 said:
Gosh, of course that too. Maher is not saying that FOX caused this guy to go off. We know very liltle. However, the question, does the FOX anti-federal government slant influence some people to go off? That is a fair question.

Which people HAVE gone off due to Fox?

Not that I agree with the flawed premise of your statememnt……but wouldn’t you need at least a few people “going off” that are directly attributable to Fox to even begin to make an assessment?

valkyrie101 said:
Your droning in denial.

You’re living in it.

Calvin said:
Wouldn’t It Be Fun To Kill The People We Disagree With Really, Bill?

Oh but Bill and Jon are satirists doncha know.

jooce81 said:
It’s kinda funny how the right on this board has the same complaints/comments about Maher as the Left on this board has about Beck/Limbaugh… see you guys you really are all the same..

Actually no we don’t.

I don’t want him to EVER shut up. I can’t prove he is an assclown if I can’t point directly to his speech for all to review and decide for themselves.

The left wants EVERYONE with which they disagree to be silenced. If they don’t want Sarah silenced…then why all this bullshit trying to lay this maniacs deeds at her feet?

Sorry Mr. Colmes……we didn’t do it too…..

I generally like his show on HBO and find that he does have a point occasionally, but when he says things like this, it just makes me lose respect for him.

That said…

Bobby Levit said:
I think it would fun to kill Bill Maher!!!

I hope you are saying this in jest, but in any case, this is just wrong to say. There’s no need for this type of talk anywhere, by anyone.

What a pathetic excuse for a human being.

valkyrie101 said:
Gosh, of course that too. Maher is not saying that FOX caused this guy to go off. We know very liltle. However, the question, does the FOX anti-federal government slant influence some people to go off? That is a fair question.

Wait, that anti-government slant that they have the stable of POTUS hopefuls espousing? HELLLOOOOOOO!!!!

“Limited government” is what you’re looking for, valk.

Maher is as much a part of the problem as any other single person you could name.He exploits our system,our politics,and tragedy for his own advantage which ultimately is about making money to support his millionaire lifestyle.

Maher’s so called humor is always laced with angry uncomfortable statements.His bias is as strong as any “celebrity” out there.He should have his show on MSNBC where it would fit right in with Olbermann and Dead ED.

I have no idea why Leno keeps having him on.Leno really never shows his own political views,like a good late night host shouldn’t unlike :Letterman,so why book an ideologue?

but the thing that gets me to most is Maher isn’t funny,so he shouldn’t be on any show that depends on humor.

I love it when hatefilled liberals like Bill say things that make normal people grone the responce is “Do you read?” “Don’t you know how smart I am?’ . What is it that Bill thinks he has that makes him so much smarter??? An undergrad from Cornell??? So the hell what? Didn’t he graduate like 30+ years ago… a few things have happen since then Bill. And FYI Bill a LOT of people have undergrads these days. Hell I have and undergrad does that make me right all the time??? Love the hate blowing from the left.

valkyrie101 said:
slant

It is a good time to talk about “anti-government rhetoric and the relationship of rhetoric to hate to violence.
First ask that people bear with me, as these are important things to consider and I want to be clear about my points.

Would you agree that “fear and hate and making threats” lead to violence? Or at a minimum, that they increase the probability of it erupting in some form?

What I think is missing from far too much of the debate is that at least a good chunk of the Tea Party movement is not “anti-government” but rather “anti-government-abuses.” (To the extent the usual Republican Party establishment suspects try or do to co-opt it, there are others with different motivation. But that is a side discussion.)

What is key to understanding the mood in the country is that EVERYTHING government does, it does by the threat of force, by the ultimate threat killing the citizen who resists. People lose sight of this most basic truth, and it seriously distorts useful discussion.

As a minor but useful example, say you absolutely refuse to pay for an artist to urinate on a crucifix. You are not tryng to ban or censor the artist, you just don’t want the NEA to pay him to urinate on a crucifux with your tax dollars. Or on a picture of Mohammed. Or a Buddha. Or whatever.)

If you calculate how much that cost and withhold it from your taxes, with NO JURY TRIAL ALLOWED YOU, the IRS will fine you more than what you held back, and also take what you held back. If you refuse to pay, they put you in debtor’s prison (even though we teach our little kids that we don’t have debtor’s prison like the barbarians in Europe did.) If you defend yourself from arrest, you are killed. All over the pay for some guy who wants to urinate on a crucifix?! Where is the cooler head that steps in from the government side to say, “hey, you know what, you’re right. It’s wrong to compel you to pay for that. You should be able to opt out of that, no problem. ” Instead, they blindly ratchet up the conflict until you submit or you are dead.

(Yes, this a a tiny amount of money, I used it to illustrate the point. There are much more expensive issues. This one is just a good one to illustrate what I mean.)

One may ask, ‘well, how is government supposed to enforce anything then?’ Fair question, and a very good one to boot. The reality is it has to use force. But this is why government MUST be so limited, as our (government-ignored) Constitution prescribes. Meaning, there are some things (actually, most all things for the Feds, per the 10th Amendment) that are COMPLETELY OUT OF BOUNDS FOR THE FEDS TO CONTROL. As an example, if Congress sits down and starts to debate a bill that legalizes raping your sister, you are right to be fearful, you are right to be outraged, and you are right to hate them for it. As with anything outside the bounds of what they are allowed to do.

So, when people speak of whether fear and anger and hate increase the likelihood of violence, they absolutely do. But what is usually missing from the discussion is all the fear, and thus anger, that the GOVERNMENT creates by threatening the citizens with its reckless overreach and breach of its written contract with the People.

In a poorly officiated sporting contest, the person who REACTS to being punched is the EASY one to spot and the one who usually gets blamed. Similarly, the debate over anger and violent rhetoric and fear and hate is largely missing the STARK REALITY that government does EVERYTHING by violently threatening the life of the citizens, WHICH DEMANDS AN EXTREME DISCIPLINE ON THE PART OF ANY *JUST* GOVERNMENT TO KEEP ITS CONTROLS STRICTLY LIMITED TO CERTAIN MINIMAL ROLES. It must be above reproach, rather than constantly breaking its own laws and threatening to further abuses.

And thus when government shows no respect for its own written restrictions, this overreach is, ITSELF, a VIOLENT THREAT TO THE PEOPLE WITH NO RESTRICTION. So, when people speak of a climate of fear and anger and hate and threats of violence, understand that a government that blithely disregards its own restraints is the MOST THREATENING ENTITY OF ANY SORT, ANYWHERE.

So if you want to know why so many people are fearful and angry, this is THE answer. And if you want to see the rhetoric of fear and anger dissipate, the Government needs to back off, not the people whom it constantly and ever-increasingly threatens.

And this was a liberal audience from Cali… how off the make does Bill have to be to make THEM groan???

Bobby Levit said:
I think it would fun to kill Bill Maher!!!

Bobby is definitley a Lefty plant. You are not fooling anyone.

Ugh, F#ing quote feature. The post above was in reference to this quite:

valkyrie101 said:
Gosh, of course that too. Maher is not saying that FOX caused this guy to go off. We know very liltle. However, the question, does the FOX anti-federal government slant influence some people to go off? That is a fair question.

tatboy said:
And this was a liberal audience from Cali… how off the make does Bill have to be to make THEM groan???

Leno’s audience is not necessarily liberal, nor from California, you know? He’s got a rather Midwestern, White Old Fart following, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that the LA area is crawling with Yankees as I write. January – Ohio. January – Southern California. Easy call.

In Southern California, there are probably some Hispanic Old Farts in Leno’s audience, as well.

I don’t think Maher will ever get over Conservatives getting him fired from “PI.” It’s funny how the far left goes to Maher and Jon Stewart, for ‘real news.’ LOL.

The Real Royal King said:
Leno’s audience is not necessarily liberal, nor from California, you know? He’s got a rather Midwestern, White Old Fart following, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that the LA area is crawling with Yankees as I write. January – Ohio. January – Southern California. Easy call.

OK… I’m not a big Tonight Show watcher (as I get up at 5am) and only know Leno through his love of cars, but I can’t imagine that his show being taped in LA he has a Republican convention for an audience. Sheriff Dubnik is an old fart… does he count as conservative??? I imagine he has a lot of tourist in the audience, but again if I had to chose I’d say his audience in LA is more MSNBC than Fox News.

Regarding Maher’s notion of the NRA being the “Assassin’s Lobby” this is the BEST piece I think I have EVER seen on the subject. My hunch is that Maher employs private protection at times, and that protection carries guns. But even if not a hypocrite about the carrying of arms, he is either a fool or intellectually dishonest. for his hopeless contribution to the debate Here’s a great explanation of why that is:

The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Rosie O’Donnell railed against guns, but has armed security guards. LOL. Dopey limousine liberals.

tatboy said:
OK… I’m not a big Tonight Show watcher (as I get up at 5am) and only know Leno through his love of cars, but I can’t imagine that his show being taped in LA he has a Republican convention for an audience. Sheriff Dubnik is an old fart… does he count as conservative??? I imagine he has a lot of tourist in the audience, but again if I had to chose I’d say his audience in LA is more MSNBC than Fox News.

I’m not sure, either. The nature of my business is such that I usually reach the office by 04:00 Hours, and I have never been much of a Leno fan. But, I’m not Maher fan. He has some good material, but I cringed at this remark, and I am generally slightly to the left of center. I suppose that is why I drive so easily in the UK.

newzmaker said:
Rosie O’Donnell railed against guns, but has armed security guards. LOL. Dopey limousine liberals.

Wouldn’t that tend to prove her point?

Just_MC said:
Regarding Maher’s notion of the NRA being the “Assassin’s Lobby” this is the BEST piece I think I have EVER seen on the subject

Thanks for that article.

Say”Sorry” to Sarah Palin
http://newsallaroundus.blogspot.com/2011/01/saysorry-to-sarah-palin-former-governor.html

Pencil-neck want’s to take my guns…

Come on, Billy-boy.

The Real Royal King said:
Wouldn’t that tend to prove her point?

It only proves that O’Donnell thinks she deserves better protection, than the average American citizen.

The Real Royal King said:
Wouldn’t that tend to prove her point?

Actually, on close inspection, iIt simply proves she is a hypocrite.

If she simply lamented guns, wishing everyone would destroy all of them so that one day we might all live without them, but acknowledging we all need them to protect ourselves, she’d not be a hypocrite. She’d just be a fool.

But she doesn’t even avoid the hypocrisy in her foolishness. When she rails against guns, she is demanding ALL THE LITTLE PEOPLE get rid of our guns all the while proving she thinks they are needed for protection because SHE USES THEM FOR HER OWN PROTECTION. Perhaps once she is satisfied they are all gone, save for the ones used by her security force, she will give up hers.

And Bill, you should just shut your hate-filled mouth before you cause some deranged lib like Jared to kill someone.

Screaming “fire” in a crowded movie theater is not permitted as an expression of free speech under the 1st Amendment . That limitation does not otherwise inhibit free speech, and by having such a rule we have not become “free speech-less”. Rather, by having such a rule we protect everyone from an “abuse of freedom”. Likewise, reasonable limitations on gun ownership and use, such as rules limiting the size of magazines would not take away our 2nd Amendment rights but protect people from the misuse of those rights.

I am generally slightly to the left of center. RRK

And the Sun is slightly hot.

valkyrie101 said:
Screaming “fire” in a crowded movie theater is not permitted as an expression of free speech under the 1st Amendment . That limitation does not otherwise inhibit free speech, and by having such a rule we have not become “free speech-less”. Rather, by having such a rule we protect everyone from an “abuse of freedom”. Likewise, reasonable limitations on gun ownership and use, such as rules limiting the size of magazines would not take away our 2nd Amendment rights but protect people from the misuse of those rights.

Question for you: when the Constitutionally stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the army of citizens can overcome attack from a professional foreign or domestic army, what is the right line to draw such that the restriction does not “take away from our 2nd Amendment rights?”

Just_MC said:
Question for you: when the Constitutionally stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the army of citizens can overcome attack from a professional foreign or domestic army, what is the right line to draw such that the restriction does not “take away from our 2nd Amendment rights?”

The point I was making is that reasonable limitations on our rights, such as rules that prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowed theater, or, for example, limiting the size of gun magazines, do not take away our rights, though they be limited. But the NRA takes the position that any limitation on gun ownership is a violation of the Constitution.

The Real Royal King said:
Wouldn’t that tend to prove her point?

What’s that point? Do as I say not as I do?

What’s good for the ruling class is anathema to you peons?

valkyrie101 said:
Screaming “fire” in a crowded movie theater is not permitted as an expression of free speech under the 1st Amendment .

Sure it is if there is a fire, i.e. the truth.

valkyrie101 said:
The point I was making is that reasonable limitations on our rights, such as rules that prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowed theater, or, for example, limiting the size of gun magazines, do not take away our rights, though they be limited. But the NRA takes the position that any limitation on gun ownership is a violation of the Constitution.

How about you define the phrase “Shall not be infringed”………….

valkyrie101 said:
The point I was making is that reasonable limitations on our rights, such as rules that prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowed theater, or, for example, limiting the size of gun magazines, do not take away our rights, though they be limited. But the NRA takes the position that any limitation on gun ownership is a violation of the Constitution.

I don’t mean to be rude–it sounds like I have not succeeded in communicating my point. I understand what you say about reasonable limitations on our rights. Meaning, to the extent a law does not interfere with a right, the law may exist.

The nuance of my point is about how you can claim the magazine restriction doesn’t interfere with our second amendment right. How is it that restricting magazine sizes DOESN’T interfere with exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights? Given that the largest-scale violence the Second Amendment recognizes is a war between citizens and the army of a foreign or domestic government.

BTW Val…….you do understand that cannons are “bigger” guns than flintlocks right?

Maybe the Framers meant we could have single shot flintlocks but no mass destructive cannons right?

And maybe Bill should change his name to What A Dumbass!

Seems to fit..don’t you think!?

Knowledge_Is_Power said:
And maybe Bill should change his name to What A Dumbass! Seems to fit..don’t you think!?

You forgot his middle name “Little”…..as in What a Little Dumbass.

Maher spends most of the show railing Republicans are gun crazy and want to kill those who disagree with them and how we should fear them, then goes on to say Republicans are bad because they use scare tactics to make their political foes the “enemy”.

And I love it when someone starts their rant by saying that they’re “not a Democrat” or “not a Republican” and then rail about the other side. It usually is the first indication that they’re full of sh!t.

I don’t know if he’s really nuts or if it’s all just his shtick.

notsofast said:
Sure it is if there is a fire, i.e. the truth.

Yep, and it is the right of all people to know that when the word “fire” is screamed in a crowded theater, it is for real and not a deadly prank.

More lunatic-left “logic”: People do not kill people; ONLY guns kill people.
…and people say that maher is not a comedian !

valkyrie101 said:
The point I was making is that reasonable limitations on our rights, such as rules that prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowed theater, or, for example, limiting the size of gun magazines, do not take away our rights, though they be limited. But the NRA takes the position that any limitation on gun ownership is a violation of the Constitution.

You have to remember that there are also those who want to eliminate the second amendment and take everyones guns away entirely. There are always going to be the fringe elements on both sides. I believe we need these fringe elements on both sides to balance it out so that we can reach the level of limited yet not eliminated rights of which you speak.

Calvin said:
Wouldn’t It Be Fun To Kill The People We Disagree With Really, Bill?

You are really worthless white trash. stupid morons like you say that and some nut bag will take that to heart. I am not on the left or right. But stupid people like make america a laughing stock .

Calvin said:
Wouldn’t It Be Fun To Kill The People We Disagree With Really, Bill?

Wow this site is full of white trash. I guess people on this site think sarah palin is god. So i am guessing alot of you people only have ged’s

Wow this site is full of white trash.

Dammit! I thought I saw a camera outside my window.

rom78 said:
Wow this site is full of white trash. I guess people on this site think sarah palin is god. So i am guessing alot of you people only have ged’s

Perhaps if you’d earned your GED you’d be able to spell words and use punctuation correctly.

VoiceofReason said:
BTW Val…….you do understand that cannons are “bigger” guns than flintlocks right? Maybe the Framers meant we could have single shot flintlocks but no mass destructive cannons right?

A good example to illustrate the point, but I think it should be very clear that people SHOULD be able to have cannon, and lots of other prohibted weapons. Many people freak without thinking when they hear that, but I ask that people at least think before they freak.

The Founders went to great lengths to write that one of the greatest threats to any People is abusive government. They make the case that IF government becomes abusive, the citizens MUST BE ABLE TO WIN A WAR AGAINST THAT ABUSIVE GOVERNMENT. Federalist 46 actually goes through an analysis of estimating how many people might be in the army of citizens versus a standing army of an abusive government.

So, I think the primary legitimate debate to have is not so much about what arms you may have. After all, if the $hit were to hit the fan, the Founders already said they intended the 2nd Amendment to GUARANTEE an army of citizens could WIN against the standing army of any tyrannical government. So, the People should be guaranteed the right to have some pretty serious weapons if they need to be able to win that scrap.

And for those who freak, understand that if the People are secure in their power, the scrap won’t happen. It will only happen if they are sufficiently disarmed such that an abusive state thinks it can conquer them.

VoiceofReason said:
BTW Val…….you do understand that cannons are “bigger” guns than flintlocks right? Maybe the Framers meant we could have single shot flintlocks but no mass destructive cannons right?

The argument that the Constitution was not talking about handguns in the second amendment is rebuked by established precedent and by the tens of millions of guns in private hands already. Since that argument is futile, the progressive thinker must consider reasonable limitations on gun ownership, size of clips, etc. For example, in an urban area, fully permitting a person of proper age to maintain a weapon in his home, is not negotiable. But other limitations are appropriate. Even Wyatt Earp had a no carry rule in Tombstone.

Why does he go on a show where they think Jaywalking is high comedy? I don’t get it. I never got why he went on Larry King either. Stick to the shows that aren’t watched by folks who stil use rabbit ears to get their TV watching.

valkyrie101 said:
The argument that the Constitution was not talking about handguns in the second amendment is rebuked by established precedent and by the tens of millions of guns in private hands already. Since that argument is futile, the progressive thinker must consider reasonable limitations on gun ownership, size of clips, etc. For example, in an urban area, fully permitting a person of proper age to maintain a weapon in his home, is not negotiable. But other limitations are appropriate. Even Wyatt Earp had a no carry rule in Tombstone.

Tombstone is actually an example of a wholly different debate: whether the Constitution trumps state laws for any but the 18 enumerated powers of Congress, or whether states can do what they want.

Tombstone raises a second question as well: is a law proper simply because it is a law? And the answer to that is a clear ‘no’ that no one should ever forget.

tatboy said:
And this was a liberal audience from Cali… how off the make does Bill have to be to make THEM groan???

Leno’s audience is not liberal. They are older white conservatives. Chances are most people in his audience are there on vacation from other parts of the country.

The third Tombstone-inspired point to debate is Private Property. Any property owner can prohibit weapons on his own property. Not anywhere else, but on his own. This is just an extension of “get off my land,” not tied to weapon carrying, but worth mentioning because it is lost in the modern world of business where we don’t notice the private nature of property as clearly anymore.

Just_MC said:
Tombstone is actually an example of a wholly different debate: whether the Constitution trumps state laws for any but the 18 enumerated powers of Congress, or whether states can do what they want.

I’ll save you some time. The answer is no.

notsofast said:
And Bill, you should just shut your hate-filled mouth before you cause some deranged lib like Jared to kill someone.

He was a conservative, you know that good ol’ I hate the government, the government is taking over, and etc. You conservatives can’t have it both ways. Bill Maher is the man.

valkyrie101 said:

Two distinctions are needed to give any answer here.

First is, given the enumerated powers of the Congress and the 10th Amendment, can the States do what they want in areas of law separate from those covered by the enumerated powers of Congress? (10th Amendment says ALL other powers are reserved to the States and to the People.)

Second is whether the Bill of Rights is a protection from the Feds violating those rights, or any level of government, including the States and below?

With these two answers, would you also cite your source or rationale for the answer?

Regards,

MC

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
He was a conservative, you know that good ol’ I hate the government, the government is taking over, and etc. You conservatives can’t have it both ways. Bill Maher is the man.

Is the government not taking over more and more every day?

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
He was a conservative, you know that good ol’ I hate the government, the government is taking over, and etc. You conservatives can’t have it both ways. Bill Maher is the man.

It’s not “anti-government” it is “anti-government-abuses.”

Were people fighting poll taxes and slavery “anti-government?” No, they were anti-government-abuses.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
He was a conservative.

He was also a Libertarian and now he’s a liberal. Frankly, I think he’s full of sh!t. He’ll be and say what ever he needs to make that almighty dollar.

Just_MC said:
Two distinctions are needed to give any answer here. First is, given the enumerated powers of the Congress and the 10th Amendment, can the States do what they want in areas of law separate from those covered by the enumerated powers of Congress? (10th Amendment says ALL other powers are reserved to the States and to the People.) Second is whether the Bill of Rights is a protection from the Feds violating those rights, or any level of government, including the States and below? With these two answers, would you also cite your source or rationale for the answer? Regards, MC

I am a little confused at what you are getting at. What is your proposition?

On my computer the Mediaite website says there are 101 comments to this story (this comment making it 102) yet your mobile site (Blackberry) stops at 88 comments. I’ve noticed this happen before. Also, the mobile site often will not allow you to click on a link. FYI, Mediaite.

Maher is absolutely correct. He just makes uncomfortable the rancid masses who dwell in the Fuhrer Bunker. Neo-Fascists disguised as Christian Republicans. Possessed by & obsessed with – intellectual abstinence.

writer said:
I am generally slightly to the left of center. RRK And the Sun is slightly hot.

I about died laughing at that one. RRK sure can’t see what HE is.

rom78 said:
Wow this site is full of white trash. I guess people on this site think sarah palin is god. So i am guessing alot of you people only have ged’s

Nobody can know what kind of education people like you have when you hide behind a phony name like you do. Why do you use your prison number for a name? Why do you hide behind the phony name in the first place? Maybe because if you let us know who you are we might find out that you are just a 15 year old kid trying to play with the adults. Maybe we might find out that you are a paid tool of the Obama administration?

So save your attacks on Palin and others until you are willing to put a real name behind them.
Get lost loser.

chorl said:
Why does he go on a show where they think Jaywalking is high comedy? I don’t get it. I never got why he went on Larry King either. Stick to the shows that aren’t watched by folks who stil use rabbit ears to get their TV watching.

Sooooooo that was you on Jaywalking that could not tell us who the Washington Monument was named for. LOL You have not liked that segment since then. LOL

Just_MC said:
Tombstone is actually an example of a wholly different debate: whether the Constitution trumps state laws for any but the 18 enumerated powers of Congress, or whether states can do what they want.

valkyrie101 said:
I’ll save you some time, the answer is no.

Just_MC said:
Two distinctions are needed to give any answer here. First is, given the enumerated powers of the Congress and the 10th Amendment, can the States do what they want in areas of law separate from those covered by the enumerated powers of Congress? (10th Amendment says ALL other powers are reserved to the States and to the People.) Second is whether the Bill of Rights is a protection from the Feds violating those rights, or any level of government, including the States and below? With these two answers, would you also cite your source or rationale for the answer? Regards, MC

valkyrie101 said:
I am a little confused at what you are getting at. What is your proposition?

What I am asking is where you stand on the debate whether the Bill of Rights protects citizens from Federal encroachments only, or whether it means the States (and lower governments) themselves cannot have any state laws that encroach on those rights as well. Or, more properly put, when the states RATIFIED the Constitution, which of those two options were they signing up for?

Just_MC said:
What I am asking is where you stand on the debate whether the Bill of Rights protects citizens from Federal encroachments only, or whether it means the States (and lower governments) themselves cannot have any state laws that encroach on those rights as well. Or, more properly put, when the states RATIFIED the Constitution, which of those two options were they signing up for?

I think the whole rationale behind the civil rights amendments was that the state and locals also can not encroach on Constitutional rights.

valkyrie101 said:
The argument that the Constitution was not talking about handguns in the second amendment is rebuked by established precedent and by the tens of millions of guns in private hands already. Since that argument is futile, the progressive thinker must consider reasonable limitations on gun ownership, size of clips, etc. For example, in an urban area, fully permitting a person of proper age to maintain a weapon in his home, is not negotiable. But other limitations are appropriate. Even Wyatt Earp had a no carry rule in Tombstone.

When did AZ become a state and thereby governed by our Constitution?

Nice try.

Read what Just_MC wrote just above this silliness. He explains it to a t.

Powerslave said:
Frankly, I think he’s full of sh!t. He’ll be and say what ever he needs to make that almighty dollar.

And there folks is the bottom line.

He’s a simple sell out trying to maintain his cash flow so he can front like he’s pertinent to the hookers he pays for company.

valkyrie101 said:
I think the whole rationale behind the civil rights amendments was that the state and locals also can not encroach on Constitutional rights.

You mean the Bill of Rights?

I think you may want to phone a friend……….

VoiceofReason said:
And there folks is the bottom line. He’s a simple sell out trying to maintain his cash flow so he can front like he’s pertinent to the hookers he pays for company.

How can anyone listen to anything Maher says. 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 degree 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

Flashback: Bill Maher Says Cheney’s Death Would Save Lives

http://angel.independence.edu/frames.aspx

Flashback: Bill Maher Says Cheney’s Death Would Save Lives

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/01/12/flashback-bill-maher-says-cheneys-death-would-save-lives/

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
He was a conservative, you know that good ol’ I hate the government, the government is taking over, and etc. You conservatives can’t have it both ways. Bill Maher is the man.

Here’s your song!

VoiceofReason said:
You mean the Bill of Rights? I think you may want to phone a friend……….

My “friend” said that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the constitution. Oh. The so called “civil rights amendments, 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH, among other things, stand for the proposition that the state and local governments also may not violate individual rights.

VoiceofReason said:
valkyrie101 said:
The argument that the Constitution was not talking about handguns in the second amendment is rebuked by established precedent and by the tens of millions of guns in private hands already. Since that argument is futile, the progressive thinker must consider reasonable limitations on gun ownership, size of clips, etc. For example, in an urban area, fully permitting a person of proper age to maintain a weapon in his home, is not negotiable. But other limitations are appropriate. Even Wyatt Earp had a no carry rule in Tombstone.

VOR asks: When did AZ become a state and thereby governed by our Constitution?
Nice try.

Nice try?

Just_MC said:
It’s not “anti-government” it is “anti-government-abuses.”

Were people fighting poll taxes and slavery “anti-government?” No, they were anti-government-abuses.

Exactly. We need to keep pointing this out to the liberals as they seem incapable of getting it.

Nobody should be applauding Maher’s repudiation of the NRA or the 2nd Amendment. Not once, have I ever heard an official from the NRA suggest committing a crime with a handgun. In fact, they represent just the opposite!
Owing guns is NOT a vise, it’s a “devise”, used for self protection, and trying to make it into something other than that, is non-sense. The NRA has always promoted training, and a common sense approach to owning weapons.
Nobody, including the NRA is promoting the ownership of weapons with military application. Why the hell didn’t Leno challenge this idiot’s non-sense? Instead, what we heard out of Lino’s mouth was some stupid analogy about the size of the magazine, when common sense tells us that he could have had two handguns and a pocket full of smaller maggs. Deranged people will find a way no matter what!
The real issue here is, why the hell did an obviously deranged person not get the medical treatment he desperately needed? Numerous people have stated they witnessed his derangement and nobody did, or said anything to authorities to address the problem.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
He was a conservative, you know that good ol’ I hate the government, the government is taking over, and etc. You conservatives can’t have it both ways. Bill Maher is the man.

Son, there you go again. We Conservatives deal in reality, not what was.

He is a lib hater- get used to it.

Wow, do Fox drones have anything better to do? Bill Maher has a very popular show because he represents what even Obama and his failed pals have turned their backs on, Progressive, equality-based, sane government. THAT is why he gets re-booked. At time he does go to far for me…..he bashes all people of faith as not very bright..a tragic misconception. Otherwise he is spot-on…and the extremist left just can’t stand hearing the truth so they scream the loudest to try to drown him out. Stay in there Bill! Maybe one day America’s majority of the sane will retake the govt and the airwaves.

Bill Maher — still in the running with Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter and Paul Krugman for most disgusting leftwing personality.

What is the matter with Leno? Does he think having Maher as a guest can improve his ratings?

Is it Bill Behar or Joy Maher?

It’s amazing that while a republican pres is in office everything is apple pie and veterans day parades with you righties. The second a dem takes office the sky is falling, socialists and commies and nazis oh my
.” We have to take back our country and defend the constitution ,cut spending ,cut taxes, give more to the rich ,give more to the corporations ,screw the little guy, screw education, screw science, screw you and your children if your not in the country club.” Republican drivel.
If you’re not rich, they are using you!
They lie to your face and drive your emotions with issues that don’t matter.
Bill Maher speaks openly and honestly without the irrational fear the right likes to spout.
The truth hurts.

VoiceofReason said:
Which people HAVE gone off due to Fox?

1 The killer of Dr. tiller
2. the man that went to the “liberal” church and killed two. He loved beck and Berine Goldberg
3 crazy guy who wanted to shoot up the tides foundation but was stopped by police. his “teacher” GB who was spouting off about the Tides and how Evil they are?

That is just from the top of my head. and Bill Maher is a comedian, not a politician or on a “news” network and you cant equate his remarks to a political leader running for public office using violent rhetoric.

Hell Bill Maher, when you used to smoke pot did you wait 5 days to get it? No. Did you pass a background check? No. Yet you did it, right? See, the drug war doesn’t work, neither does gun control. What works is free people carrying guns and shooting the bad guys.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/01/jewish-leaders-condemn-palins-blood.html

valkyrie101 said:
I think the whole rationale behind the civil rights amendments was that the state and locals also can not encroach on Constitutional rights.

valkyrie101 said:
My “friend” said that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the constitution. Oh. The so called “civil rights amendments, 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH, among other things, stand for the proposition that the state and local governments also may not violate individual rights.

Yes, this is part of what I was getting at.

14 includes “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So, there is some question about what the status was BEFORE 14. I’ve been trying to sort this one out in my spare time for a while. My straight-up reading (haven’t dug through the Federalist yet on this one) sees this as redundant to Article IV Section 2, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

But to make sense of it, it seems to me that you STILL need to apply the 10th Amendment, and look at all the enumerated powers. Congress has a very limited authority with the enumerated powers, and the 10th says THAT”S IT. The Feds can do nothing more.

So, Federal law (including the Bill of Rights) trumps state law, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITED SCOPE OF WHAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO PER THE ENUMERATED POWERS. So, if Congress makes a law about saturated fats, that’s crap. Only the states can do that. Doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t get away with it all the time, but that $hit is null and void.

And that goes for Obamacare, and a WHOLE LOT of other garbage we should all be nullifying in our state legislatures and in the courts and with juries.

Just_MC said:
So, Federal law (including the Bill of Rights) trumps state law, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITED SCOPE OF WHAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO PER THE ENUMERATED POWERS.

This is how I understand it. It makes sense. Why would the States have banded together only to have their power usurped away by others?

Mediaite…shame on you for plastering this parasites HBO ads all over your map. He needs a good home invasion, or random mugging to happen in his delusional world. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving freak.
Please take his ads off the site, and I will start paying for a subscription.

Hey Big Mouth Bill, when you went over 100 years of age, you were no longer funny. Then again you have never been funny or smart or anything other than a birth mistake by your parents. Why you wackos on the left hate so much is becoming funny. There is a reason why assholes like you are referred to as girlieboyz. And no that is not always used as a reference to you gays. It means you are all mouth and nothing else, i.e., you are all talk and no walk!BTW, you can always come and try to take my guns away if you want to try to become more of a man…lolololololol, damn u r an idiot, Billy girl…!

What an interesting and misleading take by Mediaite’s Mark Joyella.

Hope he achieved his goal of increasing web traffic from the far right posters that visit here.

Basically he takes one 10 second segment out of an 8-minute interview to try to build the case that the audience was hostile toward Maher. The truth is Maher elicited applause throughout most of the interview.

I’m not sure Mr. Joyells watched the video with an open mind. Either that or he was distracted by using the time to clean his assault rifle while watching. (/sarcasm)

Dave Noland said:
Sounds like by the end of the show he had won the audience over. Mediaite is the fox news of media websites

That’s exactly what happened.

Thanks for being the voice of reason in a comments section full of right wing Maher haters.

Just_MC said:
So, Federal law (including the Bill of Rights) trumps state law, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITED SCOPE OF WHAT CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO PER THE ENUMERATED POWERS. So, if Congress makes a law about saturated fats, that’s crap. Only the states can do that. Doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t get away with it all the time, but that $hit is null and void.

1. Not null and void unless found to be so by the Supreme Court.

2. Usually the Feds hang their hat on the commerce clause.

VoiceofReason said:
How about you define the phrase “Shall not be infringed”………….

As I said, our first amendment rights of free speech are not substantially “infringed” by limitations on shouting “fire” in a crowed theater. Nor are they significantly infringed by laws prohibiting machine guns or 31 shot handgun magazines.

HA! What a pathetic lowlife!

Unlike Maher’s audience, Leno’s audience isn’t a bunch of trained seals who wildly applaud at every talking point he spews. Maher got comfortable and thought he was on the set of Real Time, so he unleashed his disgusting bigotry but the audience let him know what a despicable man he is.

Tony Westover said:
HA! What a pathetic lowlife! Unlike Maher’s audience, Leno’s audience isn’t a bunch of trained seals who wildly applaud at every talking point he spews. Maher got comfortable and thought he was on the set of Real Time, so he unleashed his disgusting bigotry but the audience let him know what a despicable man he is.

Bigotry? To oppose the gun lobby constitutes “bigotry”? As for the “kill people they disagree with” line, that relates to Tucker Carlson’s “Kill Michael Vick” rant from just a few days ago which the right was vigorously defending right here at mediaite. Maher was being facetious. That’s what he does pretty much for a living.

LOLOLLLOLOLOL…..WAY TO GO BILL- GET THE rePUBICans ALL RILED UP….BILL HAS THE COJONES TO TELL IT LIKE IT IS….AND THE RIGHT HATES IT. UNLIKE LUSH LIMPBALLS WHO HIDES BEHIND A MICROPHONE AND IN A BULLETPROOF STUDIO -BILL HAS NO PROBLEM WITH BEING HONEST-ANYWHERE….TO ANYBODY….UNLIKE LIMPBALLS AND AHOLE HANNITY WHO ONLY PREACH TO THEIR KOOL-AID DRINKERS

Pablo said:
Put a sock in it, Bill.

Oh, and while we’re here:

You can shut up now, jackwagon.

LOL. Bill was absolutely right. Telling it like it is. It should make you uncomfortable – because it’s true.

crclarkNY said:
This just shows how out of touch Maher is. Plus he’s probably projecting his own thoughts about killing people he doesn’t like/agree with on everyone else. Sorry Bill, most of us don’t wish those we don’t agree with politically dead…just voted out of office…or their HBO show canceled…

You must have actually been AT the teaparty and missed the hate and fear mongering Rhetoric – or are a shut-in.

You need do nothing but listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Savage, Ingrahamn, Levine and you’ll find that Democrats are demonized as: Communists, Fascists, Liberal Elites (educated, I never got that one), Marxists, Socialists and who the hell knows – and the one common missing element by the Right-Wing constituents that intentionally try and shout down the opposition rather than work with or debate on an intellectual level – is YOU CAN’T BE ALL OF THESE THINGS. So the obvious point is demonization. It’s what the GOP wanted went they and the Health Insurance Lobby hired their constituents to intentionally disrupt the town hall debates. The first two weeks, they were their just to yell and when given the chance to speak – had nothing to say – they were there to disrupt. Weeks later as the funding and promotion by Fox got bigger, they started passing out Talking Memo Points (of course, it was still awkward to see retirees on Medicaide and Medicare try and read from the script and make no sense). You can trace the hate and fear rhetoric that would give an unstable mind the idea that this loser had. It wasn’t Sarah, it was the entire hate and fear rhetoric that the GOP has broadcast through AM Hate Talk Radio and Fox for the past 30 years now. And there are a list of attacks on citizens via Beck (Tides/SF), O’Reilly (Dr. Tiller) and others – you don’t have to imagine these things – it works – you incite unstable minds to follow your dangerously misguided ideas – and as we’ve been saying – this is going to happen. If you doubt it, perhaps you’ll take the word of the congresswoman who warned of this last March. Ms. Gifford. May the true one and only God see her through this man made nightmare.

tatboy said:
And this was a liberal audience from Cali… how off the make does Bill have to be to make THEM groan???

Actually, Jay gets a conservative older audience (hence Rush and Sarah visits). I wouldn’t call them liberal. They too are at the age of blind faith fever.

WildMan said:
Hey Big Mouth Bill, when you went over 100 years of age, you were no longer funny. Then again you have never been funny or smart or anything other than a birth mistake by your parents. Why you wackos on the left hate so much is becoming funny. There is a reason why assholes like you are referred to as girlieboyz. And no that is not always used as a reference to you gays. It means you are all mouth and nothing else, i.e., you are all talk and no walk!BTW, you can always come and try to take my guns away if you want to try to become more of a man…lolololololol, damn u r an idiot, Billy girl…!

Are you talking about the Weeper of the House of Beck’s Tears of A Clown? Man Up and STFU. Please. Thank you.

You need do nothing but listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Savage, Ingrahamn, Levine and you’ll find that Democrats are demonized as: Communists, Fascists, Liberal Elites (educated, I never got that one), Marxists, Socialists and who the hell knows – and the one common missing element by the Right-Wing constituents that intentionally try and shout down the opposition rather than work with or debate on an intellectual level – is YOU CAN’T BE ALL OF THESE THINGS. So the obvious point is demonization. It’s what the GOP wanted went they and the Health Insurance Lobby hired their constituents to intentionally disrupt the town hall debates. The first two weeks, they were their just to yell and when given the chance to speak – had nothing to say – they were there to disrupt. Weeks later as the funding and promotion by Fox got bigger, they started passing out Talking Memo Points (of course, it was still awkward to see retirees on Medicaide and Medicare try and read from the script and make no sense). You can trace the hate and fear rhetoric that would give an unstable mind the idea that this loser had. It wasn’t Sarah, it was the entire hate and fear rhetoric that the GOP has broadcast through AM Hate Talk Radio and Fox for the past 30 years now. And there are a list of attacks on citizens via Beck (Tides/SF), O’Reilly (Dr. Tiller) and others – you don’t have to imagine these things – it works – you incite unstable minds to follow your dangerously misguided ideas – and as we’ve been saying – this is going to happen. If you doubt it, perhaps you’ll take the word of the congresswoman who warned of this last March. Ms. Gifford. May the true one and only God see her through this man made nightmare.

J Baustian said:
Bill Maher — still in the running with Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter and Paul Krugman for most disgusting leftwing personality.

What is the matter with Leno? Does he think having Maher as a guest can improve his ratings?

You still have your hate and fear mongering AM Talk Radio and Fox – go there, they’ll tell you what you want to repeat.

You need do nothing but listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Savage, Ingrahamn, Levine and you’ll find that Democrats are demonized as: Communists, Fascists, Liberal Elites (educated, I never got that one), Marxists, Socialists and who the hell knows – and the one common missing element by the Right-Wing constituents that intentionally try and shout down the opposition rather than work with or debate on an intellectual level – is YOU CAN’T BE ALL OF THESE THINGS. So the obvious point is demonization. It’s what the GOP wanted went they and the Health Insurance Lobby hired their constituents to intentionally disrupt the town hall debates. The first two weeks, they were their just to yell and when given the chance to speak – had nothing to say – they were there to disrupt. Weeks later as the funding and promotion by Fox got bigger, they started passing out Talking Memo Points (of course, it was still awkward to see retirees on Medicaide and Medicare try and read from the script and make no sense). You can trace the hate and fear rhetoric that would give an unstable mind the idea that this loser had. It wasn’t Sarah, it was the entire hate and fear rhetoric that the GOP has broadcast through AM Hate Talk Radio and Fox for the past 30 years now. And there are a list of attacks on citizens via Beck (Tides/SF), O’Reilly (Dr. Tiller) and others – you don’t have to imagine these things – it works – you incite unstable minds to follow your dangerously misguided ideas – and as we’ve been saying – this is going to happen. If you doubt it, perhaps you’ll take the word of the congresswoman who warned of this last March. Ms. Gifford. May the true one and only God see her through this man made nightmare.

chrisjman said:
Wow, do Fox drones have anything better to do? Bill Maher has a very popular show because he represents what even Obama and his failed pals have turned their backs on, Progressive, equality-based, sane government. THAT is why he gets re-booked. At time he does go to far for me…..he bashes all people of faith as not very bright..a tragic misconception. Otherwise he is spot-on…and the extremist left just can’t stand hearing the truth so they scream the loudest to try to drown him out. Stay in there Bill! Maybe one day America’s majority of the sane will retake the govt and the airwaves.

These are the sheep of the Hate and Fear Mongering Teabagging Bloggers that work for the GOP. There role is to disrupt, try and shed doubt on common sense and give voice to insanity. They fuel the hate and fear mongering right, the less than educated, the Jesus Camp indoctrinated to believe that – it is only them – everyone else evil. It’s a pact with the devil, Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell and Rupert Murdoch. Want to trace the hostility in America – you need look no further than Murdoch and Fox. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Colture, Ingrahamn and the czars of distortion and lies. You can’t turn back 30 years of brainwashing the TV Evangelical indoctrinated. Ever see Jesus Camp? They’re brainwashing children to discredit science and facts!! They are home schooling their children into “one singular view” – no social skills or global/universal perspective – can you imagine 20 Duggar children – only getting the perspective of their very, very conservative – as in 1500s view of the world? That creates an indoctrinated view of hate and fear because their interaction with society is limited to their parents view!!! This is the cult of the GOP. It is frightening how uneducated, but resolved in their divinity, they believe they are; and they’ll deny history, truth and science in their narrow beliefs. Jim Jones, David Koresch, meet the Teabagging Republicans….

Just_MC said:
Is the government not taking over more and more every day?

The Republicans have been giving it away…they’re back….let’s see how long the bitching continues now.

newzmaker said:
I don’t think Maher will ever get over Conservatives getting him fired from “PI.” It’s funny how the far left goes to Maher and Jon Stewart, for ‘real news.’ LOL.

The difference is – they don’t claim to be news. Fox on the other hand – remove the “opinionators” Beck, Palin, Hannity, O’Reilly – and you don’t have #1 anything anymore. It’s a propaganda network for the RightWing Nuzis.

Powerslave said:
You have to remember that there are also those who want to eliminate the second amendment and take everyones guns away entirely. There are always going to be the fringe elements on both sides. I believe we need these fringe elements on both sides to balance it out so that we can reach the level of limited yet not eliminated rights of which you speak.

there are 270 million guns in America – even if your paranoia were true – how would you see it happening? There are 90 guns for every 100 Americans. Get over it. Do you think Sharon Angle should have a nuclear weapon as her weapon of choice?

newzmaker said:
Rosie O’Donnell railed against guns, but has armed security guards. LOL. Dopey limousine liberals.

Why didn’t you study in school? Because it appears you sure do watch enough Sean Hannity’s AmeriKKKa by your quotes and opinions.

newzmaker said:
It only proves that O’Donnell thinks she deserves better protection, than the average American citizen.

One of the citizens on the scene in Arizona came around the corner with his gun pulled and almost to aim to kill one of the citizens wrestling this nut to the ground – you don’t have to believe me – it aired on a morning show. Luckily, as he said, he thought for a split second before realizing he was aiming at the wrong person.

Everyone pulls there guns, who do the police look for? – Think about it. You won’t, but that’s the dilemma – who are the “good guys and who are the bad” – could make things worse..

If anyone makes it this far after the 12 posts in a row by ThreadHogBackus-

He sure likes to hear himself type doesn’t he?

valkyrie101 said:
Nice try?

Ummm yeah……

Wyatt Earp lived in tombstone from Sept of 1879 to approx April of 1882.

Arizona became a state, and therefore Tombstone was governed by the US constitution, on Feb 14, 1912.

Nice try.

VoiceofReason said:
Ummm yeah…… Wyatt Earp lived in tombstone from Sept of 1879 to approx April of 1882. Arizona became a state, and therefore Tombstone was governed by the US constitution, on Feb 14, 1912. Nice try.

My comment on tombstone had nothing to do with Arizona’s status as a state, but merely, to point out that even Wyatt Earp believed in gun control.

Bill, my hero. Hell even the audience there thinks the guy is a angry loser. Man , he must have been wasted at Hugh’s massion after this disaster.

valkyrie101 said:
My comment on tombstone had nothing to do with Arizona’s status as a state, but merely, to point out that even Wyatt Earp believed in gun control.

If you study history long enough you will ultimately discover that the Earp brothers and Doc Holladay were criminals. They passed that law in order to legally murder anyone who might challenge their authority.

maher always stirs up trouble.

mark thuesen