Monday, June 20, 2011
Miscellaneous 85
1) The Honda Gold Wing has been a superior cycle for nearly 40 years now. But, come on here, wasn't it (style-wise) essentially just a knockoff of the Harley Davidson Electra Glide (granted, yes, a smoother, faster, and more reliable version)? I mean, seriously.............2) Honda Rebel or Harley Davidson Sportster? Me - I'll take one of each!............3) I have to admit it here. I liked the old Bill Maher much better (you know, before he started drinking the Kool-Aid). But he did say something on his most recent show that I agree with TOTALLY. He pointed out how Dick Cheney once killed 73 pheasants in some ridiculously short period of time, and that that was, in his opinion, one whole hell of a lot more psychotic than ANYTHING that Congressman Weiner did. He's right, IMO.............4) Rachel Maddow asked this rhetorical question tonight (at the end of Lawrence O'Donnell's broadcast), "Come on, who doesn't think that 'South Park' is funny?" Rachel Maddow, wd. wd, Rachel Maddow.............5) I hate to say this, but I am really and truly starting to dislike Laura Ingraham. So much so, in fact, that if her and Rachel Maddow ever got into a fistfight, I would probably have to root for Maddow. And THAT, my friends, is saying A LOT.............6) I simply can't understand why the left is constantly trying to resurrect Jimmy Carter. a) He wasn't a very good President (or leader). b) He wasn't even a liberal (most of his legislative accomplishments were done in tandem with Howard Baker and Bob Michael - this, folks, ACCORDING TO MR. CARTER HIMSELF!). And c) you never see Republicans trying to rehabilitate guys like Hoover and Nixon. I mean, yes, he was in fact a good and decent man but, come on. Enough already!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Laura Ingram...Sarah Palin...Batshit Bachman...what a lineup
Harley has improved greatly from the time when you could go into a dealership and find brand new bikes needing drip pans to catch the leaking oil. I was eleven or twelve when I asked some bogus biker in a dealership why they were collecting oil only to see him get mad then laugh.
One of my uncles had an old Honda CB550 which he loved and let me ride....until I wrecked the thing. It would take hours to write about the details of the wreck but I was lucky and came away with road burn and 75 stitches in my left leg, the bike flipped twice, I think, then hit an embankment and took a plunge in a river.
Total loss, never rode another one again.
I think Jimmy Carter was a very good president. Did you not hear that recently he said the war on drugs has failed and should be abandoned? I'd have thunk you'd be in agreement... and perhaps had some words of praise for Mr. Carter? I guess all you're interested in is beating up on the guy...
Let's see... Will is virulently anti-union, often worries about the prospect of taxes going above the magic percentage they were under Clinton, is opposed to removing the profit motive from the health care insurance racket (and saving lives)... all what I'd call pro-corporate positions.
Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic president prior to Bill Clinton's pro-corporate third way (which is being followed by Obama). Let me guess... you didn't become a "moderate" until after Bill Clinton's election (which was when the Democratic party shifted to the right)?
Prior to Clinton my guess would be that you self-identified as Republican.
[1-2] I've never heard of the "Gold Wing", the "Electra Glide", the "Honda Rebel" or the "Harley Davidson Sportster"... for all I know you could have just made those names up.
[3] I like the new Bill Maher better... although I was totally unaware that he drank any kool-aid. Could you please explain what kool-aid you think he drank?
[3] I agree about the pheasant killing, although at first I read that as peasant killing. I thought you were going to reveal something about DC that I hadn't previously heard.
[4] I missed Lawrence O'Donnell. Keith Olbermann was so good I watched him twice (at 7pm CT and 10pm CT). South Park is sometimes funny, sometimes not funny, and sometimes offensive. I think I dislike Parker and Stone more than South Park -- which I'm sure is a product of many more people than just these two (although I blame them specifically when an episode offends me).
[6] Jimmy Carter rocks. There may never be another Liberal president again.... unless we slip into depression and the people rise up and demand Obama go in a more Liberal direction... which I'm thinking just might happen (not that I want there to be a depression).
I'm looking into the Can-Am Spyder RS. It's freakin' wicked!
I'm still boggled by the fact that the left hasn't pushed harder for Vitter and Craig's resignations.
Carter's post-presidency life is vastly superior to other post-presidents at this time. He's simply more respected and after a presidency that he had, that's saying something.
Teeluck, welcome back. Yeah, and you can add Marsha Blackburn (a person who thinks that you can balance the budget simply by cutting non-defense discretionary spending) in, too - for seasoning!............Double b - Hondas or Harleys? It's the second most asked question of all time (trailing only Ginger or Mary Ann?). Like I said, I'll take one of each; a Honda for the speed and reliability, a Harley for the chicks appeal.
CDM, Carter is unquestionably a decent man. I just don't see how people can look at the misery index and the interest rates and say that this fellow was a good President. It just doesn't work that way.
wd, you know who else who doesn't think that Carter was such a good President? Ted Kennedy. Remember, he challenged him? AND liberal firebrand Eugene McCarthy thought that Carter was such a dreadful President that he ultimately endorsed Ronald Reagan. He frigging endorsed Ronald Reagan. LOL
I'm for raising the top tax bracket to 40%. I'm for raising the capitol gains tax (for the wealthy) to the same (indexed for inflation). I was for extending the unemployment benefits. AND, I'm for a health insurance reform bill that a) covers 100% of Americans and b) prevents the insurance companies from discriminating. Only in the paranoid la la land of wd and Keith Olbermann is an agenda of this nature seen as "Corporatist".
IMO Jimmy Carter is the best president of my lifetime (so far).
I'm not counting Barack Obama because I think the jury is still out regarding his presidency.
Will: Only in the paranoid la la land of wd and Keith Olbermann is an agenda of this nature seen as "Corporatist".
Keith Olbermann doesn't know who the hell you are. Or care. This despite your constant bashing of him on your blog. He's never read a single one of your posts. Trust me on this.
40%??? Damn, Will, that's very liberal of ya.
I say that as a poking jab.
Will: Only in the paranoid la la land of wd and Keith Olbermann is an agenda of this nature seen as "Corporatist".
Didn't you get INCREDIBLY upset when Jolly Roger suggested you have an agenda? It seemed to me that you objected to the use of the word itself, not the nature of what JR suggested your agenda is.
You said, "That a$$hole accused me of having an agenda. FVck him".
You didn't say that he accused you of having a Republican, Conservative, or Corporatist agenda. You objected to his use of the WORD agenda.
Now you've admitted that you DO have an agenda. How very weird.
WD said: "I think Jimmy Carter was a very good president."
There were some good things about him. He was the one who started arming the Nicaraguan nationalists against the Soviets. He also helped the people of East Timor stave off socialism.
"Let's see... Will is virulently anti-union, "
Let's check this.
Will, are you anti-union? Would you outlaw unions?
Or would you do as I do and protect workers from union abuses (By making participation voluntary) and put unions on the same part with the ACLU and Sierra Club and NRA?
Then, does it follow that we are anti-NRA or anti-ACLU merely because we don't want anyone to be forced to join any of these against their will?
--------------------
WD: Is the new Bill Maher anything like the old one who said that handicapped children weren't human beings?
Bill Maher NEVER said handicapped children weren't human beings. That is another lie I previously set you straight on BUT you keep repeating anyway. I even linked to a YouTube video of the incident so you could see for yourself that he didn't say that.
Bill Maher said retarded children 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 monstrous as your distortion of what he said.
Here is the link to the YouTube video so you can verify that those are his words.
According to my sources "the Sandinistas formed a majority government after winning 61 of the 96 seats in the national legislature [and, regarding the election] independent observers from Western democracies declared it to be both fair and free".
Jimmy Carter was wrong to support the Contras.
Also, According to Human Rights Watch, "the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war".
I'm not real familiar with the situation (due to the fact that I was a politically unaware child at the time), but I do know Reagan illegally armed them (After US support was banned by congress) by selling arms to Iran and then funneling that money to the Contras.
Ronald Reagan should have went to prison for his role in the attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government. The United States should stop doing that (attempting to overthrow democratically elected governments).
"Right to work for less" laws should be abolished. Joining a union is NOTHING like joining the ACLU or the NRA. People join unions to represent them in negotiations with their employers.
JOBS... the thing people use to obtain food, clothing and shelter. The ACLU and the NRA have nothing what so ever to do with obtaining these necessities of life. It's a ludicrous comparison.
IMO anyone who supports "right to work for less" laws is anti-union. Because these laws weaken unions. I'm in favor of protecting employees from employer-abuses, which is one of the purposes of unions.
wd, you're trying to make some hay that I used the WORD, agenda? Really, is that what's it's all come down to? Would you prefer that I used the word, mindset? You accused me of having a corporatist agenda/mindset. I was trying to prove the fallacy of that position and I did.............As for Jolly Roger, Cliffy, etc., those individuals have been lying about my record/impugning my integrity for years. You had better believe it that I'm going to give it to them between the eyes from time to time.
WD said: ""Right to work ..." laws should be abolished."
Why the hell should any worker be fired for refusing to join a political group that has nothing to do with the job? This sort of abuse is protected by right to work.
"Joining a union is NOTHING like joining the ACLU or the NRA."
True. Most people in unions are forced to join against their interest and against their will. In contrast, NO NRA, ACLU etc member is ever forced to join.
"People join unions to represent them in negotiations with their employers."
Some workers want this. Most do not. Why not let each worker choose?
Besides, the agenda "represent them in negotiations with their employers" is no different from the NRA's "protect 2nd amendment rights" and the ACLU's "protect civil liberties". All of these, the unions included, have agendas that are controversial, and the way they go about putting forth the agenda is controversial also.
"JOBS... the thing people use to obtain food, clothing and shelter."
All the more reason that people should be protected from being FIRED for refusing to join a union.
"The ACLU and the NRA have nothing what so ever to do with obtaining these necessities of life. It's a ludicrous comparison."
Union thugs force factories to close, and union thugs on picket lines harass working people to try to make it hard for them to work. So here you have unions making it harder for people to work, bullying and harassing and robbing working people. The NRA and ACLU never do this. So I guess the comparison is ludicrous after all!!!
"IMO anyone who supports "right to work for less" laws is anti-union."
EXACTLY the same as saying that I hate the NRA because I oppose laws to force people to join it. Or the ACLU.
"Because these laws weaken unions."
Of course it does. Not having a law to force everyone to join the NRA sure as hell weakens them too.
"I'm in favor of protecting employees from employer-abuses, which is one of the purposes of unions."
Unions force companies to fire people and also to close down entire workplaces. That's pretty bad on employees.
Also, "right to work" means "right to work for more. When people earn an honest living at a fair wage (something unions oppose strongly), they tend to keep their jobs, while unions leave destroyed cities full of poverty in their wake. Visit Detroit or Flint sometime.
Respect workers. Respect their choices and interests. This includes choosing not to be in unions.
Heil Maher!
Here is a rather damning part of the quote which WD left out. Since WD's goal was to lie about what Maher said:
"But I've often said that if I had -- I have two dogs -- if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing "
And it gets worse:
"Cynthia: My 9-year-old nephew is retarded. I've never thought of him like a little dog.
Bill: Well, maybe you should."
Dogs have no rights. Human beings do. Do you agree with Maher that a large class of human beings are like dogs?
Read it all here.
The conclusion is: "Martin: I'm not gonna comment. You're a hideous, cold person."
That's an apt summary for Maher's cribbing from the Nazi plan in the 1930s which ended up killing all of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled people.
If I were Maher, I'd use "people" in quotes.
And on Carter:
The Sandinista vote counting was fair. That is what the "independent observers" ruled on. However, the Sandinista political campaigns were freely funded from the Sandinista-controlled government (such funds were denied the opposition) and the Sandinistas even ordered opponents to be beaten up.
Carter was very wise to support the nationalists fighting against the Sandinistas.
"I'm not real familiar with the situation (due to the fact that I was a politically unaware child at the time)"
I watched it very closely.
"but I do know Reagan illegally armed them (After US support was banned by congress) by selling arms to Iran and then funneling that money to the Contras."
Bill Clinton similarly illegally supported rebels in Serbian-occupied Croatia. This is even more recent too. But those on the left hung up about the "legality" of helping Nicaragua were silent on this. I watched both situations closely.
"Ronald Reagan should have went to prison for his role in the attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government."
Just as FDR conspired to overthrow Hitler, who was elected too. No different.
"The United States should stop doing that (attempting to overthrow democratically elected governments)."
Actually, the Sandinista regime was imposed on Nicaragua by the USSR, and was as democratic as other major socialist states such as North Korea.
Reagan did the decent and proper thing: he supported this nation in fighting back againt the colonists. But as I said, credit is due to Carter, as he started the aid of the Nicaraguan nationalists which Reagan continued.
Republicans constantly try to resurrect Reagan instead and they attribute claim that his political philosophy was like theirs, even though blue dog republicans with Reagan philosophies today are rejected as outcasts in the GOP.
dmarks, I did not lie about what Bill Maher said... I posted a link to the YouTube video. Are you saying I posted an edited video on YouTube?
I am also not saying that I agree with what he said, just that you mischaracterized his words. Bill Maher does not want to send disabled children to the gas chambers.
dmarks: He equated them with dogs. This is a fact.
He didn't say they were like dogs in all respects -- he said they, "don't mentally advance at all". That was his ONLY point. This other BS you're claiming about Bill Maher saying they aren't human and don't have rights... these are all lies you made up.
dmarks: I suppose next you will defend the Obama administration referring to the mentally disabled as "fu**ing retards".
The Obama Administration didn't do that. It was Rahm Emanuel who said that, and it was in reference to the Left, not actual mentally disabled individuals.
In any case, I DID take exception to what Rham said, which was never endorsed by the "Obama Administration" BTW.
I'm glad he's gone. I never like the guy.
That's two lies of yours that I've exposed here. But you'll probably continue to defend them anyway.
WD said: "Dmarks, I did not lie about what Bill Maher said... I posted a link to the YouTube video. Are you saying I posted an edited video on YouTube?"
You did in fact lie. Your lie: "Bill Maher NEVER said handicapped children weren't human beings". Maher did. He said they were like dogs, not human beings. You denied he made the statement equating human beings to dogs. That is why it was necessary to show the transcript. Regardless of the content of the video you chose to ignore somehow.
"I am also not saying that I agree with what he said, just that you mischaracterized his words."
No, I did not.
"Bill Maher does not want to send disabled children to the gas chambers."
I do not know his views on dogs. Does he oppose euthanizing unwanted pets? Or support it? That would be the best indicator on his views of this class of human beings that he hates.
If he had said the same of black people, or Jews, would you still be defending and lying about his words?
"He didn't say they were like dogs in all respects"
A weak defense. You are nitpicking over the irrelevant details of someone''s claim that an entire class of human beings did not have worth as huma nbeings.
WD: "don't mentally advance at all". That was his ONLY point."
That was one of many points. Read the transcript.
WD: "This other BS you're claiming about Bill Maher saying they aren't human and don't have rights... these are all lies you made up."
Read the transcript. Maybe then you will stop lying about Maher's words and defending them.
In fact, if Maher's name had been Rush Limbaugh, you'd be on my side. I'm sure of it.
Also, the Obama Administration DID in fact refer to the mentally disabled as "f**ing retards". This was a pejorative used by the Chief of Staff during the performance of his duties for the Obama Administration. It's a matter of historic record. but yet again it must be one of those things where you say "no way!" in a knee-jerk fashion without bothering to check the facts.
as "fu**ing retards".
"The Obama Administration didn't do that. It was Rahm Emanuel who said that"
That's pretty funny. Did you know, that, at the time, Emanuel was a major spokesman for the Administration, and represented it in its many dealings?
"and it was in reference to the Left, not actual mentally disabled individuals."
No, it was him bashing the mentally disabled. Just as someone using the N-word as an insult without directly applying it to African-Americans is racist. Do you honestly think that hate speech is OK if used like this??
"In any case, I DID take exception to what Rham said, which was never endorsed by the "Obama Administration" BTW."
Yes it was. Emanuel remained with the administration after this, and got no reprimand.
That's two lies of yours I exposed here. But you will probably continue to ignore the actual words said and defend them anyway.
Calling someone a retard is akin to calling them stupid. Do I agree with, approve, or endorse using the word in this manner? NO, I do not. It is NOT, however, the same thing as using a racist slur. That's just a fact. One you might not like, but a fact none-the-less.
Perhaps the President did say to Rham Emanuel, in private, that his words weren't cool. You're saying he should have been fired? He apologized. The apology was accepted. That apology was to the head of the Special Olympics. He never apologized to Liberals. Which is what I'm upset about. And one of the reasons I'm glad he's gone.
What else do you want me to say? President Obama should have demanded Rham's immediate resignation? That because he did not the president should resign in disgrace?
The president knew Rham's reputation for using coarse/politically incorrect language when he hired him.
As for Bill Maher... saying one thing is LIKE another (in ONE respect) is NOT THE SAME as saying they are exactly alike in every respect. Anyone who would suggest otherwise... I'd say their attacks are all about partisanship. Period. Or they are stupid. Or English isn't their first language. Are you a native English speaker dmarks?
You don't like Bill Maher because of his politics, and (as a result) you've created this fantasy in which Mr. Maher hates and wants to kill mentally challenged people. Based on some politically incorrect words of his you've twisted to mean what you want them to mean. Frankly I'm growing tired of arguing about your delusions.
I've watched the video several times. I don't agree with what he says. It's way to harsh. It's mildly offensive. Beyond that I really don't care.
Proof that you are delusional is that you hear what you want to hear regardless of what I've actually said (written). For instance, you said "yet again it must be one of those things where you say 'no way!' in a knee-jerk fashion without bothering to check the facts".
I don't need to check the facts. I already know what they are. I clearly acknowledged that Rham Emanuel called Liberals "fVcking retards". I NEVER disputed that. I objected to it. I didn't defend it in any way.
You twist the words of people you disagree with to make it appear as though they've said something worse than what they actually said. You did it with Bill Maher. Now you're doing it with me. I don't like it.
dmarks: Bill Clinton similarly illegally supported rebels in Serbian-occupied Croatia.
I recall no Congressional hearings where Bill Clinton violating a prohibition against arming Croatian rebels was discussed. I do recall that he was questioned for being involved in a consensual relationship with an intern. Perhaps you're confusing the two?
That, or you're making up your own facts.
dmarks: watched both situations closely.
So then you approved of the illegal arms sales to Iran?
Just as FDR conspired to overthrow Hitler, who was elected too. No different.
No, the situations are TOTALLY different. Hitler wanted to conquer all of Europe. As far as I know the Sandinistas were only interested in ruling Nicaragua.
What President Reagan did was violate legislation passed by Congress. Congress decided we wouldn't provide any additional assistance to the Contras. Reagan should have went to prison for his lawbreaking. Presidents (at least in theory) are not above the law. Apparently you think they are?
dmarks: Union thugs force factories to close.
What the hell would they do that for? I thought you said the purpose of unions was to enrich the union bosses and funnel money to Democratic campaigns? If they force factories to close that ruins all those plans! This is a perfect example of the total illogical nature of everything you believe dmarks. Seriously, it's laugh-out-loud ridiculous.
Frankly, I don't know why I continue to argue with someone as clearly delusional as you are.
WD lied: "Calling someone a retard is akin to calling them stupid."
You are completely uninformed about this. Get educated. You are really going on and on about something you know nothing about.
If 'retard' were akin to calling someone stupid. Rahm Emanuel would have had no reason to apologize. And he did apologize. Why? Because it is far worse than calling someone "stupid". It is much more akin to the level of "faggot" and other offensive slurs.
The OED which you relied on earlier says the word is "offensive a person who has a mental disability (often used as a general term of abuse).", even worse than how it ranks "faggot"
"NO, I do not. It is NOT, however, the same thing as using a racist slur. That's just a fact. One you might not like, but a fact none-the-less."
No, it is an opinion. Mine, which is much more reasonable, is that it is on the level of so-called milder racisl terms, like "wetback" or "injun", but not as bad as the N-word. However, victims of such hate speech might have a different opinion. Better informed than ours. It's easy for you to say the word is OK if you are not one of your despised "retards".
"He never apologized to Liberals. Which is what I'm upset about. And one of the reasons I'm glad he's gone."
Why? Because you were so offended that he compared liberals to your despised "Retards"? I've seen other liberals express this view.
"The president knew Rham's reputation for using coarse/politically incorrect language when he hired him."
Par for the course. This is the same President who thought it was OK to bash Special Olympians on Letterman.
"As for Bill Maher... saying one thing is LIKE another (in ONE respect) is NOT THE SAME as saying they are exactly alike in every respect."
What if Maher had said the same thing about African-Americans or Natives? Then would you defend him?
"Anyone who would suggest otherwise... I'd say their attacks are all about partisanship. Period."
I suggest otherwise. And it is not about partisanship. Michael Weiner (a conservative radio host who was once on MSNBC) has the same problem. Only I doubt you will defend him.
"Or they are stupid. "isn't their first language. Are you a native English speaker dmarks?"
Yes. See the beginning when I educated you about the pejorative "retard".
"You don't like Bill Maher because of his politics"
Actually, there's hardly anyone I dislike for their politics. it is when someone gets bigotted or has other problems, that I dislike them. There are plenty of leftist commentators I like, or have no problem with. But I can't think of another who uses hate speech like Maher.
"..and (as a result) you've created this fantasy in which Mr. Maher hates..."
Maher created this situation himself.
"....Based on some politically incorrect words...."
Sorry, hate speech goes beyond 'politically incorrect'.
" of his you've twisted to mean what you want them to mean."
No, I am taking this exactly as he meant it. Read his argument.
"Frankly I'm growing tired of arguing about your delusions."
Another lie. I have yet to put forth one 'delusion'. However, you are arguing against the facts, and insisting that hate speech is OK. Not a good strategy.
You should become more informed on these matters before you type about them.
"... Beyond that I really don't care...."
To paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemöller: "First, they came for the retards..."
OF course hate speech is OK with you, as long as it is not directed at you. You don't care.
From the R-Word website:
"The R-word is the word 'retard(ed)'. Why does it hurt? The R-word hurts because it is exclusive. It’s offensive. It’s derogatory. The R-word is hate speech. See why supporters think the R-Word is hurtful when used in jokes or as part of everyday speech"
It's a site made by the Special Olympics organization. People who are actually informed about it, and won't lie again and again and defend this because of some misplaced loyalty to Maher and Emanuel.
Time to correct some more untruths:
"You did it with Bill Maher. Now you're doing it with me. I don't like it."
No, I presented what Maher actually said.
"I recall no Congressional hearings where Bill Clinton violating a prohibition against arming Croatian rebels was discussed."
Of course not. Fewer people in Congress objected to him breaking this law. but he did break it.
"I do recall that he was questioned for being involved in a consensual relationship with an intern."
You misremember this, or are misleading. He was being question because he sexually harassed an employee. The "consensual" usage of another underling for sexual gratification was a side matter, but relevant.
"Perhaps you're confusing the two?"
Of course not. If you had any idea about former Yugoslavian history, you would know about Clinton aiding the rebels. Get educated.
"So then you approved of the illegal arms sales to Iran?"
No, I did not.
No, the situations are TOTALLY different. Hitler wanted to conquer all of Europe. As far as I know the Sandinistas were only interested in ruling Nicaragua."
Actually, the Sandinistas invaded Honduras and even attacked Costa Rica. Sandinista interior minister Tomas Borge called conquest of the rest of Latin America.
However, the Sandinistas were no Hitler. The only reason I compared the two was that both situations involved brutal dictators who were "elected".
"What the hell would they do that for?"
Why the hell would union thugs force factories to close? Because they are not qualified to be managers, or be involved in pay decisions at all. So they extort high wages, usually above the real value of the work, and this is not sustainable at all. So the factory closes.
"I thought you said the purpose of unions was to enrich the union bosses and funnel money to Democratic campaigns?"
You think correctly on this. This is what happens.
"If they force factories to close that ruins all those plans!"
Yup. the thugs have no idea what they are doing.
"This is a perfect example of the total illogical nature of everything you believe dmarks."
No, it is an example of the destructive and illogical aims of unions. I am merely accurately describing them.
"Frankly, I don't know why I continue to argue with someone as clearly delusional as you are."
You mean as well inforemd as I am. The reason you do so poorly is that you talk about matters you know nothing about.
Bill Maher's comparing mentally challenged human beings to canines is a little bit more than "mildly offensive", wd.......Or at least it would be if Rush-bo had said it.
dmarks, let's get something straight - I have not been defending what Bill Maher said. I don't like what he said nor do I agree with it. I was defending him against your gross mischaracterization of his words. Bill Maher does not believe mentally challenged children and dogs are exactly the same, nor does he believe that mentally challenged people are sub-human and should be put to death. These are lies you concocted (or imagined).
dmarks you are also lying about what I've said. You ignore select portions of my comments in order to bash me. I never said use of the R-word was OK. I said the exact opposite. I never said I "despise" mentally challenged people. Also, when I said, "calling someone a retard is akin to calling them stupid" I was making an observation about how society at large feels about the use of this word. I don't agree with the word being used this way, but the fact remains that it is.
dmarks lied: It's easy for you to say the word is OK if you are not one of your despised "retards".
I don't "despise" mentally challenged people. I don't have any negative feelings about them at all.
dmarks lied: ...you were so offended that he compared liberals to your despised "Retards"?
No, I was offended because he implied that Liberals are stupid. Currently I am "so offended" because you're lying about how I view the word "retard". I don't think it's cool to use it to call someone stupid.
dmarks lied: Par for the course. This is the same President who thought it was OK to bash Special Olympians on Letterman.
They president did no such thing. He misspoke. Why? Because society at large says it is OK. He later apologized. I SERIOUSLY doubt he'll make a similar slip-up in the future.
dmarks: What if Maher had said the same thing about African-Americans or Natives? Then would you defend him?
Why would he say that African or Native Americans "don't mentally advance at all"? I can't answer your question because it makes no sense.
dmarks: Michael Weiner (a conservative radio host who was once on MSNBC) has the same problem. Only I doubt you will defend him.
I have no idea what Michael Weiner has said on this topic. Therefore I can't defend him (or not defend him). In any case, isn't this the guy who calls himself "Michael Savage"? Do you have some kind of prejudice against people with the last name of "Weiner" (and that explains why you're refusing to use the name he goes by)?
dmarks: Actually, there's hardly anyone I dislike for their politics.
I find that hard to believe.
dmarks: Maher created this situation himself.
If someone says something you disagree with -- it's open season on the person and anything goes -- including lying about what they've said? I strongly disagree. I think your case against Mr. Maher would be stronger if you voiced your objections without resorting to lies.
dmarks: hate speech goes beyond 'politically incorrect'.
The R-word is "hate speech"? I think that would depend on the intent of the user -- just like a hate crime is entirely dependant on the INTENT of the person committing the crime. Bill Maher doesn't hate mentally challenged people. He did not intend for his words to be hateful. Therefore I stand by my assessment of what Mr. Maher said as "politically incorrect". I'd also call his words insensitive. I do not think they rise to the level of hate speech, however.
dmarks: I am taking this exactly as he meant it. Read his argument.
I watched the video on YouTube. My conclusion is that you're dead wrong regarding Mr. Maher's comments.
dmarks: Another lie. I have yet to put forth one 'delusion'. However, you are arguing against the facts, and insisting that hate speech is OK. Not a good strategy.
Your delusions are that Bill Maher believes mentally challenged children and dogs are exactly the same, and that he believes mentally challenged people are sub-human and should be put to death. Another delusion of yours is that I think hate speech is OK. None of these delusions are true.
dmarks lied: OF course hate speech is OK with you, as long as it is not directed at you. You don't care.
Hate speech is very much NOT OK with me. Neither are liars who put words in other people's mouths... like you, dmarks. I'm also not OK with people who are prejudiced against others because their last name happens to be "Weiner". I find this prejudice of yours to be incredibly juvenile.
Will: Or at least it would be if Rush-bo had said it.
If Rush Limbaugh said it I'm sure the context would be different. Rush Limbaugh would never say the exact same words with the exact same intent behind them... that's impossible. He's not Bill Maher, he's Rush Limbaugh. I assess these situations on a case-by-case basis.
WD said: "dmarks, let's get something straight - I have not been defending what Bill Maher said"
After which you defended and justified it repeatedly. Contradicting your own introduction. Lying and claiming someone's hate speech is not hate speech is defending said hate speech.
One example: you said "Hate speech is very much NOT OK with me." And then you falsely claimed that an example of hate speech was not really hate speech at all. Which makes it OK.
WD asked: "The R-word is "hate speech"? "
Only an uninformed bigot would evn ask such a question. Again: GET EDUCATED. Read the link to the R-Word site and reflect on that. It was made by people who actually know what they are talking about.
"I think that would depend on the intent of the user"
Are you really such an idiot?
"Bill Maher doesn't hate mentally challenged people."
Yes he does. Read his transcript. Degrading an entire class of people to being sub-human is part of hatred.
"Therefore I stand by my assessment of what Mr. Maher said as "politically incorrect"."
If you continue to deny that it is hate speech, you have no idea what you are talking about.
"I do not think they rise to the level of hate speech"
Incorrect opinions are still incorrect. This is exactly like conversations I've had with racist whites about how the N word is OK.
WD said: "If someone says something you disagree with -- it's open season on the person and anything goes "
No, I am being fair and only dealing with him on his specific statements.
WD: said "Why would he say that African or Native Americans "don't mentally advance at all"? I can't answer your question because it makes no sense."
It is another example of lies and bigotry. I wondered if you would shrug it off if it were racially based.
"Neither are liars who put words in other people's mouths... like you, dmarks"
You can't name one example of this. You are making stuff up, You are being a liar.
"I watched the video on YouTube. My conclusion is that you're dead wrong regarding Mr. Maher's comments."
Next time, watch with the sound UP. Your "conclusion" shows you did not even listen.
And yes, the President DID bash Special Olympians with a joke on Letterman. It's in the historic record. You can't deny it.
If anything is juvenile, it is WD's hatred of "F**ing retards" to the point where he keeps lying repeatedly and denying that such a statement is hate speech.
In conclusion, you are right Will. WD is making up stuff and lying right and left not because of the facts, but because the person caught saying something bad was Bill Maher.
Hate speech is OK with WD. He says it over and over again.
(And yes you have a good point on Mr Weiner. Making fun of him for his name IS juvenile. Instead, he should be criticized for his atrocious behavior during this scandal, and terrible voting record).
dmarks, I think this conversation is winding down. I made my case, and I stand behind it. Obviously you're going to keep lying about what I've said (and I can't stop you).
Clearly you believe the intent behind a person's words is irrelative. You don't care what Bill Maher really meant; you'll interpret his words the way you see fit... so you can bash him for his "hate speech". IMO that makes YOU the idiot.
For the record, I consider what you're doing incredibly dishonest. I never used the phrase "F**ing retards" and you damn well know it.
dmarks: Only an uninformed bigot would even ask such a question.
It was a rhetorical question that I answered. I said it would depend on the intent of the speaker.
dmarks: the President DID bash Special Olympians with a joke on Letterman. It's in the historic record. You can't deny it.
I completely and categorically deny it was his intent to make fun of the Special Olympics.
dmarks: If you continue to deny that it is hate speech, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I continue to deny it. What kind of idiotic argument is this anyway? You think you can convince me to see things from your point of view by telling me you'll praise me for not being stupid if I do? FYI, dmarks, your opinion means nothing to me.
dmarks lied: Hate speech is OK with WD. He says it over and over again.
Actually I've said repeatedly that it isn't OK with me. You must have a reading comprehension problem.
dmarks: [Anthony Weiner] should be criticized for his atrocious behavior during this scandal, and terrible voting record).
I commend Anthony Weiner for his stupendous voting record. He always stood with the people. Which is why a majority of his constituents wanted him to stay.
In any case, I was talking about Michael Savage (which is what he calls himself). So why did you call him Michael Weiner? To make fun of him? That was my guess.
dmarks: In conclusion, you are right Will. WD is making up stuff and lying right and left not because of the facts...
Another delusion. Will didn't call me a liar or say I was making up stuff. Go back and read his comment. Those words aren't there. I think this should make it incredibly clear to all that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Bill Maher said something dmarks finds offensive and therefore he is a hate speech spouting bigot who wants all mentally challenged people put to death. Because they are exactly like dogs, are sub-human, and have no rights.
Will says he believes Bill Maher's words are worse than "mildly offensive" and that I'd be singing a different tune if Rush had said it... and dmarks believes this means Will is in complete and total agreement with everything he has said.
Delusional. I don't know how else you could explain this type of behavior.
WD said: "Bill Maher said something dmarks finds offensive and therefore he is a hate speech spouting bigot"
You are being intensively misleading. The R-word is objectively classified as hate speech by those in the know. The OED which you claim as the only dictionary authority says it is "offensive".
...who wants all mentally challenged people put to death. Because they are exactly like dogs, are sub-human, and have no rights."
The latter part comes from Maher. The first part? No he did not call for their deaths.
"Delusional. I don't know how else you could explain this type of behavior."
Delusional fits those who attempt to justify hate speech again and again.
"dmarks, I think this conversation is winding down. I made my case, and I stand behind it."
You have failed to make a case. You keep avoiding what Maher actually said, and going out further on a limb you keep denying that the R-word is hate speech.
"Obviously you're going to keep lying about what I've said (and I can't stop you)."
If I ever start, I'd welcome your attempts to stop me. But I'm not about to start lying.
"You don't care what Bill Maher really meant; you'll interpret his words the way you see fit"
It's not a matter of intepretation, which in your case means lying to cover up what he really said.
"... so you can bash him for his "hate speech". IMO that makes YOU the idiot."
Maher bashed mentally disabled children. You defended him. I'm pointing out the facts on what's said. That makes me the idiot? Yeah right.
"For the record, I consider what you're doing incredibly dishonest. I never used the phrase "F**ing retards" and you damn well know it."
I am being quite honest. Once I brought up Emanual's own hate speech, you were quick to defend it, and even lie about it.
"I completely and categorically deny it was his intent to make fun of the Special Olympics."
Obama laughed and people around him did. It was a joke. How can
"I continue to deny it."
Have you gone to the R-word web site yet? Maybe then you won't lie and defend the indefensible.
"You think you can convince me to see things from your point of view by telling me you'll praise me for not being stupid if I do? FYI, dmarks, your opinion means nothing to me."
Much more importantly, the facts mean nothing to you.
Hate speech is OK with WD. You says it over and over again..... and I repeat this, especially right after your lie about Obama's special olympics joke.
"In any case, I was talking about Michael Savage (which is what he calls himself). So why did you call him Michael Weiner? To make fun of him? That was my guess."
Michael Weiner is his actual name. Like Maher, he liked to repeatedly bash special-needs children. Might make him some sort of hero to you.
Me saying that you mischaracterized Bill Maher's words is not the same as me defending those words. As I have repeatedly said. Obviously you are too dense to understand the distinction.
Your entire argument is a straw man based on what you imagine Bill Maher said. I've had enough. I'm done responding to your lies. Someone as delusional as you cannot be reasoned with.
Post a Comment