1) "I've said it many times. If Muslim men could get laid more, we we wouldn't have this problem There's probably no suicide bomber who, after he died, people said, 'You know, that guy, he blew himself up, but boy - he got laid a lot.'".............2) "All this talk about the people who burned the Koran and nothing about the people who reacted in such a STUPID (my emphasis) way. We're always blaming the victim and not holding, not most Muslims, but at least a large part of the Muslim community that doesn't condemn their people. What it comes down to is that there is ONE (again, my emphasis) religion in the world that kills you when you disagree with them. They say, 'Look, we're a religion of peace and if you disagree we'll cut your effing (sanitized) head off.' And nobody calls them on it, or there are very few people who call them on it."........................................................................................................I may be wrong here, folks, but, in my opinion, if a conservative had made these comments (the second of which, yes, I basically agree with), people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz would be going apoplectic. BUT, because it was Bill Maher who said them - NOTHING! So much frigging so for sound principled commentary, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What's wrong with what he said Will?
I was saying that the bastards who chopped people's heads off in reaction to that idiot preacher are the bigger assholes and murderers. They deserve no sympathy or understanding.
I was saying this from day one.
If outraged Muslims had taken to the airwaves and streets explaining the good aspects of Islam rather then chopping off people's heads the Middle East Chaos would be over and there'd be a helluva a lot more Muslims.
I remember that, Truth. And you kinda took some heat, too, as I remember. I, too, agree with the second comment. The first one, however,, mmm, maybe no.
Maher has the heart of a Nazi, really. He hates all religions except his own (an attitude he shares with ayatollah's) and once went on about how handicapped people weren't even human and should be treated like dogs.
And I don't agree with Maher on Muslims either. People of Maher's faith, Atheism, routinely kill people of other faiths (for religious non-compliance) in such places as mainland China and North Korea. And yes in recent history (Serbia's invasion of Kosovo) Christians have killed tens of thousands for not being Christians).
As with many things, Maher has no idea what he is talking about, but he thinks he is cool showing his ignorance and hatred.
So you support Muslims who chop people's heads off Dmarks?
I figured even you'd agree with me and Maher about nuts that behead people.
You're taking partisanship too far man. Even I can say something good about a republican: That John Boehner can hold his liquor.
See?
Those are all fair points dmarks. My main emphasis here, however, was more on the lack of consistency shown by left-wing cable talking-heads, excoriating conservatives for this type of incitement but giving Mr. Maher a pass. The Truthster, to his credit, HAS been consistent.
No. Maher slammed the entire faith.
Will, you do make great points on this.
You're never going to find someone whom you agree with 100 percent of the time -- and, as far as Liberals are concerned Bill Maher is right at least 90 percent of the time. Bill Maher makes a better ally than enemy.
I think we (speaking as someone on the Left) should respectfully disagree with Mr. Maher on this topic (as Keith Ellison did), but also accept that he isn't going to change his mind regarding the evils of religion (which he isn't entirely wrong about, btw).
But that isn't good enough for someone living in the black and white morally superior CONSISTENT world Will lives in. He says Liberals are hypocrites if they don't go after Bill Maher hammer and tongs and make an enemy of him. Will, no offense, but you can stuff your "sound principled commentary" and "consistency".
You mention Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz... but what about Lawrence O'Donnell? I guess he doesn't rub you the wrong way. I imagine you're looking forward to Keith Olberman's new show on Current TV... once he's back on the air you'll have more fodder for posts bashing him.
dmarks said... No. Maher slammed the entire faith.
Yea, he does that. Maybe you've heard of his movie?
wd, they don't have to go after him with hammer and tongs. But, in terms of moral consistency, they should at least challenge him a little on this stuff. Come on, it's kind of like with Hannity and Obama's spending (Hannity hammering Obama but giving Mr. Bush a pass).
Keith Ellison did challenge him. You're the one that brought up the interview, but now you've forgotten?
Pundit programs are more entertainment than they are news... these pundits do have an obligation to do a show that conforms to what their target audience wants to see. I don't have any desire to see RM take BM to task for his views on religion (Islam or Christianity).
I want to see RM (and other Left-leaning pundits) advance the Liberal agenda. You may take offense at the word but I embrace it. If someone were to "call" me on my agenda... I'd say -- you're damn right I've got one.
These programs aren't showcases for their host's moral consistency, as much as you may want them to be. You aren't a member of MSNBC's target audience.
That's my whole problem with these types of shows, wd; Maddow, Hannity - shows created to cater to a certain audience who's all too willing to lap up the propaganda. In my opinion, they're dividing an already all too divided nation.......Those other two comments that I posted came long after the Ellison interview and in very close proximity to the Maddow interview. Most other fairer interviewers would have queried him on them.
In my opinion you can't divide an already divided nation by speaking the truth... which is what Rachel Maddow does. What's dividing the country are lies from the likes of Hannity.
Rachel Maddow expresses left-wing opinion. She is "truth" for the left as Rush Limbaugh is "truth" for the right.
Neither, nor Sean Hannity, "divides the nation". They are all expressing their freedom under the First Amendment.
So the hell what if Limbaugh and Hannity are "expressing their freedom under the First Amendment"?
Do you believe that if you're "expressing your freedom under the First Amendment" you can't be lying? I didn't realize there was a "no lying" clause in the First Amendment.
Or maybe you think there is no such thing as a "lie", but that EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion?
Either way... I say you're wrong.
dmarks: Bill Maher said handicapped people weren't even human and should be treated like dogs.
No he didn't. He said retarted people are "sweet, loving and kind but they don't mentally advance at all". What he said is politically incorrect (hence the name of his program), but it certainly is not as monsterous as your distortion of what he said.
Maybe you should check these things first instead of thinking your lies (intentional or unintentional) will just slip by.
Post a Comment