Another boring redux. And criticizing someone for their looks is in poor taste. I think it says far more about you than it does about her. Not that Joy Behar has anything to be embarrassed about. I think she is fairly good looking.
FYI, Joy Behar is starting a new program on Current in the fall. I'll be watching.
It's all in good fun, wd. And it isn't just the disparity in looks that I was referring to. I was also referring to the disparity in brain power.......Jerry, I think that maybe you need glasses.
Maybe she could interview David Voth and other such miscreants who currently find themselves in the stew.......Oh, wait a minute, that's already been done. And, plus, she'd also have to deal with those same corporate lackeys who so unceremoniously dumped Mr. Olbermann.
The past few days in Las Vegas there was a charity event that did'nt get much pub,except for ESPN.
Guy Laliberte the founder of Circ de Soleil had an idea for a fund raiser for his charity One Drop.It was the largest poker tournament ever held.The buy in was $1,000,000.48 players each ponied up a million,the winner received 18.4 million dollars but the charity got close to seven million dollars.It was held at the Rio and was heart warming to see both gamblers and businessmen put their money up for a very worthwhile charity.
As for Behar, remember she is the one that called for people to commot the crime of arson and burn down Romney's house. Which might have been dangerous had she had an audience.
Actually, Russ, Kobe will get much better shots with Steve Nash intravenously feeding him. So, yeah, I do kinda understand it from that perspective.............I can't believe the stuff that she gets away with, dmarks. Of course, the most unpardonable crime of all is the fact that she just isn't funny.
dmarks: As for Behar, remember she is the one that called for people to commit the crime of arson and burn down Romney's house.
She did not say that. She said WHAT IF Romney's house caught on fire. It was a comment made in response to these news stories of late where the fire department lets people's homes burn down because they didn't pay a fee.
If Hannity had made the same outrageous statements in favor of this type of action against Obama and his house, you would be all over his case. And rightly so. But since Behar is 'on your side' you give her a free pass.
WD said: "She said WHAT IF Romney's house caught on fire"
Actually, here is what she said. The complete statement. There is nothing like a "what if" in it, let alone one that is capitalized or emphasized in any way:
I mean, I'd like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down. Who's he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?
Let's look at her actual words. She indicated a preference to see his house burn. Something she'd like. From an influential talk show host, this would could easily be taken as a call for her audience to make something reality. This is obvious. I mean, look at Oprah and her book recommendations. If Oprah had said she would like the home of someone she didn't like torched, it would likely happen. The only reason this is less of a danger with Behar is because her audience is rather small. However, that does not absolve her for the blame of making this threat/demand.
Let's move on to the next part of her statement. Behar claims that Romney has millions of homes. Using the usual conventions for rounding numbers, this would mean at a minimum that she is stating that Romney has 1,750,000 or more houses.
Is this true? According to PolitiFact, Romney owns just three houses. Yes, three. Not only is Behar off with her figures, she is off by a staggering amount: a factor of more than 583,000. Either she is a liar, or she suffers from http://math.about.com/cs/reference/a/discalcula.htm. Regardless, this part of her statement, like the first, is well below any standards, let alone journalistic ones.
Perhaps she could be sent out on assignment, not to return until she has a report, including photo, of 100 of Romney's homes. Since she is stating that each state has at least 35,000 Romney homes, this should be easy for her to do.
Or perhaps Current TV can pay her a salary of three dollars a year, instead of the 7 figures she is likely receiving. According to Behar, the difference between the amounts is negligible.
Finally, there is the third part of her statement, about the "Mormon fire department". This is undeniably an example of religious bigotry on her part: equilevant to bashing Mayor Bloomberg for going to a "Jew barber".
So, what do we have here? A three part statement that does not include "WHAT IF", but does include a call to violence, a huge whopper of a lie about how many houses Romney owns, and ends with her trying to be "cute" by bashing Romney for his faith.
WD said "I agree 100 percent and applaud her for saying it.", which means that WD likes to incite violence, can't count, and is a religious bigot. Well, he did say 100%.
Rusty summarized Behar as follows: "People like them who just screech the craziest shit without knowing shit just make fools of themselves". Will said "I can't believe the stuff that she gets away with, dmarks"
Rusty and Will rightfully condemn this woman's outrageous statements, while WD agrees 100% with them.
I will leave this with a challenge for WD, who agrees with Behar that Romney has "millions" of houses, to document any sort of proof. I will even be generous, and allow a low 'rounding' factor of 1,500,000 homes. After all, WD agreed with Behar's statement one-hundred percent. It should be easy for him to substantiate this.
Joy Behar's comment was made after Romney's remarks about cutting public sector jobs. What she said was NOT meant literally. She meant, WHAT IF his home caught fire and there were no firemen to put it out (because they were fired like Romney suggested they should be)?
Also, Romney is a Mormon... yea, he does not mention it because he knows it is a negative with his evangelical Christian base, but he really is a Mormon. I don't know how stating a fact is a slur.
dmarks: I will leave this with a challenge for WD, who agrees with Behar that Romney has "millions" of houses, to document any sort of proof. I will even be generous...
I think you're being serious here... I mean, you are that dense... to not be able to recognize a joke.
Will: Wow, dmarks, you're right; an attack, a lie, and slur all rolled into one.
It's none of those things. The comment was about Romney being out of touch with regular people (the "millions of homes" JOKE) and a observation about the stupidity of attacking public sector workers who perform services we need.
"I mean, I'd like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down. Who's he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?" Yeah, I don't know, wd. That doesn't sound a little too harsh to you? And does Romney really want to fire all the firemen? Or just the ones that we may not necessarily need?
Obviously the firemen we need are the ones who would put out fires at the homes of rich people... and the ones we may not necessarily need are ones who would put out fires at the homes of non-wealthy people.
And your evidence for this statement is what? New York City has about a bazillion firemen and vast percentage of them DO NOT put out fires in Midtown Manhattan and the Upper East Side.
So, dmarks, why say nothing when Will claims NY has a "bazillion" firemen? Why not go on and on about Will not being able to count... and then challenge him to prove his "bazillion" claim?
The only reason dmarks goes after Behar is because she dared poke fun at his beloved Romney. Also, I laughed at Joy Behar's joke, as I'm sure many others did... but only non-wealthy worshipers. I can understand why wealthy worshipers would be offended.
I call you on your lie. As I said earlier, if Limbaugh had been calling for people to burn down on of Obama's homes the way Behar was, I would condemn him strongly on it. And I have called Limbaugh before for bashing Obama for his supposed religion. And it does not matter to me if there is a (D) after someone's name or an (R) if they are lying about how many homes someone has for effect.
OK, here we go. WD and Behar don't care what words mean, or about real math, but I do.
From the dictionary:
Bazillion: "a large indeterminate number"
Million: "The number equivalent to the product of a thousand and a thousand; 1,000,000 or 106: "a million people"."
There's nothing to call Will on it at all, so I missed nothing.
Now, let's suppose Behar had said a "bazillion" instead of "millions". This vagueness might have saved her, but when you think about it, who in their right mind would say that Romney's sum total of three homes (a well known verified number) is either "large" or "indeterminate"
WD said: "She meant, WHAT IF his home caught fire"
Twice earlier, you said emphatically that she said "what if" Looking at her real quote, she neither said 'what if', nor anything that could be paraphrased this way
Now you have retreated to "she meant", which is pure imagination and speculation. We can't go by what someone wishes she would have said. Let's instead look at what she said.
WD mentiuoned: "...wealthy worshipers..."
This is also irrelevant. I don't worship Romney and his wealth. Nor am I bent out of shape with jealousy, or have any desire (as Behar does) to see people commit violent assaultive crimes against Romney and his family.
Three houses, a bazillion, or millions: it's his business, not mine.
Exaggerating a number for comedic effect isn't a lie. Anyone who heard Behar's words knows nobody owns millions of homes. You not getting the joke does't make it not a joke. And it certainly doesn't make what she said a "lie".
It was a joke and everybody knows it. The more you lie about this the dumber you look.
dmarks: Twice earlier, you said emphatically that she said "what if" Looking at her real quote, she neither said 'what if', nor anything that could be paraphrased this way.
I said it once, and I was misremembering what she said. Although I did remember that what you claimed was false. It's extremely clear that she isn't actually wishing Mitt Romney's home (any of them) to burn because she used the word "millions". Everyone knows nobody has ever owned millions of homes, therefore we know she's making a joke.
What she did was use humor to point out the stupidity of firing needed public servants. Public servants Mitt Romney would need if his home were to catch fire. Intelligent people know this. As for partisan liars and the dupes they lie to (like dmarks)... that's another matter.
Also, if she were to wish something bad to happen to Romney it would be something bad that would cause him to drop out of the race. His house buring down wouldn't do that, unless he were still in it, and she didn't say anything about wanting him to be in his house when it burned.
BTW, "bazillion" isn't indeterminate, it's infinite. So what's going on here is that Will says NY has an infinite number of firefighters and dmarks gives him a pass because of their shared conservative ideology, but he attacks Joy Behar because she's a Democrat... even though he knows what she said was a joke.
WD said: "It's extremely clear that she isn't actually wishing Mitt Romney's home (any of them) to burn "
Again, it is a matter of what you wished she had said, or hadn't said... in great contrast with what she really did say.
What did she say? "I'd like to see his house burn".
That's the word "like". In this context, it is a synonym for wish (the meanings are so close).
"Also, if she were to wish something bad to happen to Romney..."
She DID wish something to happen. People often do die in house fires. Arson, the crime she was wishing for, is a considered to be an assaultive felony.
"BTW, "bazillion" isn't indeterminate,"
You are wrong. I quoted the dictionary earlier: it is indeterminate.
"So what's going on here is that Will says NY has an infinite number "
Correction: He used the word "bazillion", which means "a large indeterminate number"
"dmarks gives him a pass because of their shared conservative ideology"
Correction: He's a moderate and not a conservative. I'm a conservative and not a moderate. We have no shared ideology.
dmarks: ...it is a matter of what you wished she had said, or hadn't said... in great contrast with what she really did say.
Correction 1: It's a matter of what she meant, which we know because nobody has millions of homes. That's how we know she was making a joke.
Correction 2: I do NOT wish she had said something else. Because that would eliminate a funny joke, and also the statements from Conservatives who know what she meant outing themselves as liars or idiots (if they think she really meant it).
dmarks: She DID wish something to happen. People often do die in house fires. Arson, the crime she was wishing for, is a considered to be an assaultive felony.
Correction 1: No, it was a joke.
Correction 2: She didn't say anything about arson. Homes can burn down for many other reasons. You're stating something you wish she had said and not what she really said.
dmarks: Correction: He used the word "bazillion", which means "a large indeterminate number".
Correction: "bazillion" means an infinite number. I looked it up.
dmarks quoting me: Also, if she were to wish something bad to happen to Romney...
You changed the meaning of what I said by cutting the quote short (i.e. you lied). The rest of it said "...that would cause him to drop out of the race". She said absolutely nothing about arson or Romney being in the house when it burned.
dmarks: He's a moderate and not a conservative. I'm a conservative and not a moderate. We have no shared ideology.
Correction: He's a Conservative who misidentifies as a moderate. Virtually everything he advocates for is Conservative in nature. I know this because I've read his blog.
I am discussing what Behar actually said, and WD is making up right and left what he thinks she meant. The latter is meaningless.
"It's a matter of what she meant, which we know because nobody has millions of homes"
Why wasn't she just accurate, instead of saying sh... er stuff without any regard to its meaning?
As for her wishing people to torch Romney's home not being threatening to Romney's family, you are apparently unaware of the fact of why arson of dwelling is considered to be an assaultive crime. She said plenty about arson: she wished for it.
You are defending the indefensible in all ways: from her call for violence, to her lying about the houses, to her bashing his faith.
And on that last one: most of the Mormon-bashing I see in regards to Romney comes from heft-wingers, not 'evangelicals'.
dmarks: I am discussing what Behar actually said, and WD is making up right and left what he thinks she meant.
Mediaite: ...it seems [Joy Behar] isn't entitled to a reasonable person's interpretation of her remark, which was clearly meant to raise a hypothetical in response to Romney's call for fewer firemen, as in "I'd like to see what would happen if Mitt Romney's house caught fire. Who's he going to call since he doesn't want more firemen?"
...what this ...really illustrates is the right wing's screwed up sense of priorities. They're at once outraged by what they all recognize as a joke... Not one of them, however, is outraged that Mitt Romney opposes hiring back any of the 700,000 cops, firemen, teachers, and other public servants who have been sacrificed to protect Romney's own 13-14% tax rate, or the real houses that could burn down as a result. [end excerpt from Mediaite]
Also, I saw her explain these comments herself on Current, and she said the same thing as the Mediaite author.
dmarks is the one making up stuff left and right with no regard to the facts.
dmarks: As for her wishing people to torch Romney's home... She said plenty about arson: she wished for it.
You're lying. You quoted her exact words and she never said "arson".
dmarks: You are defending the indefensible in all ways: from her call for violence, to her lying about the houses, to her bashing his faith.
There was no call for violence, lying about houses, or bashing of Romney's faith. I can't defend things that didn't happen.
dmarks: ...most of the Mormon-bashing I see in regards to Romney comes from heft-wingers, not 'evangelicals'.
That's why Romney says nothing about being Mormon... they have beliefs right wing Christians would find strange. Look it up if you don't believe me. Also, I have no idea who these "heft-wingers" you refer to are.
"dmarks is the one making up stuff left and right with no regard to the facts."
Incorrect. Find where I am doing this? You can't. I am sticking to what she actually said. You can't accuse me of having no regard to the facts when I stick to what she said.
You still ignore what she said. Instead, you find a leftist blog that has your "spin" and refer to how Behar, confronted with the fact that her statement was as Will said, an attack lie and smear all in one, has been trying to backtrack.
"You're lying. You quoted her exact words and she never said "arson"."
No, I am telling the truth. She did not use the word "arson", but her expressing her wishes to her audience for Romney's house to be torched does meet the definition of arson.
And yes, there was a call for violence, followed by lying about the total # of houses, followed by her bashing him for being Mormon. As so many on the Left happen to do.
The Left bashing Romney for his faith is quite common, and not limited to Behar. Bill Maher, a leftist and a major religious bigot, likes to do this a lot.
So much for your statement of "Also, I have no idea who these "heft-wingers" you refer to are."
You know who Maher is, and you aren't fooling anyone.
Also, the link you provided, WD, shows examples of left-wing bigotry against Mormons. Did you even bother to read it?
The final comment is this:
"I heard that part of your interview played on Hannity's Hour of Hate, TC, and I thought Behar trying to make a point about Willard's policy on firefighters using the MORmON fire patrol to try to save one of Willard's millions of home from burning funny as well. Faux outrage by right wingers, once again..continually missing the real point."
Yet another example of a left-wing religious bigot going after Romney's faith.
dmarks: Incorrect. Find where I am doing this? You can't.
I can. You lied about Joy Behar calling for Romney's house to be burned down by arson. You made that up out of whole cloth. It is a complete invention of your imagination.
dmarks: Behar, confronted with the fact that her statement was... an attack lie and smear all in one, has been trying to backtrack.
She isn't trying to backtrack. She stands by what she said and doesn't give a damn about how the Right wing is spinning her words to try and make her look bad. She probably finds it quite amusing... as do I.
dmarks: No, I am telling the truth. She did not use the word "arson", but her expressing her wishes to her audience for Romney's house to be torched does meet the definition of arson.
She didn't use the word arson, nor did she express any desire for his home to be "torched". She didn't use either of those words. You're lying your ass off.
dmarks: yes, there was a call for violence, followed by lying about the total # of houses, followed by her bashing him for being Mormon. As so many on the Left happen to do...
More lies. None of that happened.
dmarks: You know who Maher is, and you aren't fooling anyone.
You aren't fooling anyone. I never said I didn't know who Bill Maher is. Also, everyone Bill Maher is critical of religion, no matter what religion it is.
I've never heard Bill Maher lie about other religious faiths. Sure, he's got a lot of opinions that I disagree with, but opinions aren't lies. But dmarks must be talking about a different Bill Maher, because the one I'm thinking of does not have a religious faith.
Also, I meant to say "Also, everyone KNOWS Bill Maher is critical of religion, no matter what religion it is". I'm surprised dmarks didn't flame me for the missing word.
I have no problem with people exaggerating for the sake of effect, wd. But this Behar chick's attempt at it would have made more a lot more sense if Mr. Romney had, say, 25-30 houses (a shitload, in other words) and not frigging THREE!......And I'm still not entire certain what the actual punchline was; the moronic exaggeration as to his housing ownership, or the vulgar singling out for ridicule the individual's religious faith. I mean, she's not exactly being Lenny Bruce or Mort Saul here.
Wait a minute, Will. When you say, "...not frigging THREE", it makes it sound owning three houses is no big deal. Just what percent of people do you think own three or more homes?
So you didn't like the joke Will. No surprise there. It doesn't make what she said not a joke, which is what dmarks is ridiculously claiming. According to him she doesn't know the difference between 3 and "millions". Does anyone beside dmarks believe that to be the case?
I don't think dmarks believes it. He's just saying it so he has another point on which to attack her.
Will: ...or the vulgar singling out for ridicule the individual's religious faith...
I don't know what you're talking about with this. He's big in the Mormon church and gives them a lot of money. If the firemen wouldn't put out the fire it stands to reason the Mormon church might do it.
WD said: "I've never heard Bill Maher lie about other religious faiths."
I guess you have never heard of his film "Religulous"
"Sure, he's got a lot of opinions that I disagree with, but opinions aren't lies."
An opinion that is not true is a lie. Where do you get your ideas?
"But dmarks must be talking about a different Bill Maher, because the one I'm thinking of does not have a religious faith."
The one on HBO happens to have the faith of "strong Atheism".
"Also, everyone KNOWS Bill Maher is critical of religion, no matter what religion it is".
Except for his own faith., And you are the one who does spelling flames, not me. Most recently you bashed me for a spelling mistake in a comment that I deleted because of its spelling mistake
Will said: "I have no problem with people exaggerating for the sake of effect, wd...."
The key to successful humor is to have a grain of truth in it. Behar's "joke" fails due to the disconnect between a mere three homes and the number that she stated (millions)
"And I'm still not entire certain what the actual punchline was; the moronic exaggeration as to his housing ownership, or the vulgar singling out for ridicule the individual's religious faith."
Well, left-wing religious bigots like to spell Mormon as moron, after all.
"I mean, she's not exactly being Lenny Bruce or Mort Saul here."
If she were, she'd be jockeying for a position on a major network late-night TV show, instead of her career failing as she gets kicked to the bottom of the cable TV dial.
dmarks: I guess you have never heard of his film "Religulous"
I have seen this film. Have you? I say no, because Bill Maher doesn't lie about religion in it, he tells the truth (and gives his opinion).
dmarks:An opinion that is not true is a lie. Where do you get your ideas?
I get my ideas about the meaning of words from the dictionary. You should try it. Making up your own definitions only makes you look stupid.
dmarks: The one on HBO happens to have the faith of "strong Atheism".
You dropped the word "religious". We were talking about religious faiths, and Bill Maher still doesn't have a religious faith. And that was a pretty pathetic bait and switch attempt.
dmarks: The key to successful humor is to have a grain of truth in it. Behar's "joke" fails due to the disconnect between a mere three homes and the number that she stated (millions)
This is why Joy Behar's joke succeeds... there is a grain of truth in it. Mitt Romney is a rich guy with millions of dollars who owns a lot of homes.
dmarks: left-wing religious bigots like to spell Mormon as moron, after all.
You are lying. They do not. One comment on a blog does not prove something about all Left-wingers. Also, the person who made the comment didn't identify as a Left winger. So that's two lies from dmarks.
dmarks: If she were, she'd be jockeying for a position on a major network late-night TV show, instead of her career failing as she gets kicked to the bottom of the cable TV dial.
Ah, the favorite dmarks insult. He really likes to call people with far more talent, fame and money than he will ever have "failures". But only if they're Democrats. Everyone sees though his BS, so it's a mystery why he keeps doing it. Also, Joy Behar co-hosts the popular and long running (15 years) program "The View"... which is on a major network (ABC). Only an idiot would not conclude that she is a huge success.
WD said: "You dropped the word "religious". We were talking about religious faiths, and Bill Maher still doesn't have a religious faith. And that was a pretty pathetic bait and switch attempt."
Bill Maher does have a religious faith: it is that of strong atheism. And the "truth" problem of "Religulous" is well documented. It is very misleading. He bashed others' religious faiths, but not his own. "Religulous" and his other bigotted attacks appeal to small-mindedness, bigotry, and hatred.
Sorry, WD. An opinion that is incorrect is still incorrect. And if the person stating something incorrect knows it, it is a flat-out lie.
"This is why Joy Behar's joke succeeds... there is a grain of truth in it."
Like a grain of sand on the beach, that is. Romney's 3 houses, well short of the minimum 1,500,000 required to be the "millions" in Behar's flat-out lie which you attempt to save by calling it a 'joke'
"You are lying. They do not. One comment on a blog does not prove something about all Left-wingers."
I am telling the truth. Stop lying about it. You know as well as I do that I also present a major example: Bill Maher bashing Mormons just because they do not share his own religion.
"Ah, the favorite dmarks insult. He really likes to call people with far more talent, fame and money than he will ever have "failures"."
She is not a failure...yet. That description accurately applies to Keith Olbermann; once on top, or close to the top, of the heap in his field. Then kicked to the bottom of the stack due his shenanigans, finally fired for many reasons including his abuse of his staff. He threw it all away.
Behar, while being kicked down the stairs, still is raking in millions as a successful corporate Democrat.
"But only if they're Democrats. Everyone sees though his BS"
Stop mainlining vodka, dude, and think for once. I say the same thing about Republicans and conservatives who destroy their careers.
"Everyone sees though his BS"
Name one person. I mean someone besides yourself (because you happen to who reads the facts and then lies about it.... and you have lost all credibility with statements such as calling Will a "conservative" even though he votes for left-wing Presidential candidates most of the time).
Also WD said: "Mitt Romney is a rich guy with millions of dollars who owns a lot of homes."
You are positively seething with jealousy, and also happened to tell a lie: 3 is not a "lot" ever.
Why not do something productive, WD, and earn money to own as many homes as you want, instead of whining piteously about those who get off their ass, actually do some work, and get some benefit from it? You sure are greedy and jealous.
One guy owning three homes worth 20 million dollars doesn't bother me one iota, especially since he's probably forking over a boat-load in property taxes.............As for making jokes about Mr. Romney, I would think that the flip-flopping element would be a lot more fruitful (not to mention, a lot less inflammatory) than the pissing upon his religious faith component. But, hey, that's just me.
I think inflammatory Mormon-bashing is what WD likes. After all, earlier he said he agreed with it 100%. And he strongly agrees with Maher's "Religulous" film which was wall-to-wall religious hatred and bigotry. You know, the kind of thing that, if it has a large audience, sends people out into the streets foaming like mad dogs to kill those who do not have their same faith. We need less of that, not more. We need more 'peace love and understanding' in the world, not films like "Religulous" which appeal to the base, the unintellectual, the bully.
We need more of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and less of Bill Maher.
Will said; "If Romney owned that much property in my town, he'd be paying approximately $530,000 a year to the locals. That isn't exactly chicken-scratch"
You know, most of the time when WD's heroes get caught fudging the numbers, as in the Maddow example about the Wisconsin budget, WD lies and lies, and insists that the fake numbers are real. (proving himself to be as good at acocunting as he is at international law: Lord save us from armchair accountants who fudge a huge deficit into a surplus!)
We know Behar wasn't joking, as the "joke" wasn't funny. That leaves her as the worst sort or journalist: one who makes up their own facts for fun.
Yet, oddly enough, in this example, he is insisting the fake numbers are a joke. Perhaps that can be something he can use in the future to "save" Maddow: call her lies "jokes".
Then he can bash us for not laughing when we point out that Maddow the massive Wisconsin deficit problem Scott Walker was handed a "surplus" isn't funny at all.
I guess that is his sense of humor: when a leftist journalist reports facts that are so off base that even his attempts to cover the lies aren't worth it, he can call the lies jokes.
Anyway, according to the facts as stated by "Current TV" television journalist Joy Behar, Romney probably has hundreds of homes in your community. It's likely, based on dividing the > 1,500,000 number of houses in the country she insists Romney has.
So forget your "he'd be paying approximately $530,000 a year to the locals" figure. With hundreds of homes in the area, he'd be ponying up $25 million a year to the government of your town.
dmarks: Like a grain of sand on the beach... Romney's 3 houses, well short of the minimum 1,500,000... in Behar's flat-out lie which you attempt to save by calling it a 'joke'
I don't need to do shit to "save" it. It is what it is, and it was a joke. You didn't like it because it poked fun at the fact that your hero Mitt Romney is an out-of-touch rich a-hole.
dmarks: [Joy Behar] is not a failure... yet.
OK, then you admitted you lied. But the "yet" addendum is another lie. Joy Behar has been on "The View" for 15 years. She can't be comparred to Keith Olbermann at all. Joy Behar is clearly a winner.
dmarks: That description accurately applies to Keith Olbermann... He threw it all away.
Yet he still has millions of dollars he could live comfortably the rest of his life on. But Keith Olbermann has nothing to do with this conversation at all. You only bring him up because I caught you lying about Joy Behar being a "failure".
dmarks: Behar, while being kicked down the stairs, still is raking in millions as a successful corporate Democrat.
She is on a popular show on a major network. She isn't being "kicked down the stairs". You're lying. Also, she is a progressive Democrat, not a corporate Democrat. More lies.
dmarks: Stop mainlining vodka... I say the same thing about Republicans and conservatives who destroy their careers.
You lie about successful Republicans and call them losers? Baloney. You've never done that. I call you on your BS. You must be "mainlining vodka".
dmarks: Name one person.
I'm sure everyone here disagrees with at least some of the BS you write. Like calling Joy Behar a "loser" when she's clearly a winner. Just because nobody says anything about your lies does not mean they agree with them.
dmarks: You are positively seething with jealousy, and also happened to tell a lie: 3 is not a "lot" ever.
The "jealously" BS again. I only point out the facts. He's rich and got that way screwing over workers. That is why many people dislike him. Not because he's rich, but because of how he got rich.
Also, three house is a lot. Not as many as the (at least) seven owned by John McCain (so many he forgot the number), but it is still far more than the average American owns.
dmarks: Why not do something productive... You sure are greedy and jealous.
Mitt Romney should have done something productive to earn his money. Instead of destroying jobs he could have worked to make the American economy better. But he took the greedy way and screwed over American workers to make his millions.
dmarks: Bill Maher does have a religious faith: it is that of strong atheism... "Religulous" and his other bigotted attacks appeal to small-mindedness, bigotry, and hatred.
I thought the film was quite funny, and I'm a Christian. Also, the movie had nothing to do with small-mindedness, bigotry, or hatred... unless you're describing your reaction to his film. You sound extremely intolerant and bigotted toward non-believers.
dmarks: Sorry, WD. An opinion that is incorrect is still incorrect. And if the person... knows it, it is a flat-out lie.
Sorry dmarks, but not all questions have a right or wrong answer. Or not one we can know now, like the religious question... which means that you can't know that Bill Maher is wrong. You're pretty arrogant to claim you know Bill Maher is "lying".
dmarks: You know as well as I do that I also present a major example: Bill Maher bashing Mormons just because they do not share his own religion.
You're lying your ass off, as usual. We were talking about a comment on a blog which you pretended represented the views of all Liberals. And, as a non-believer, Bill Maher is in the minority. His views also do not represent those of a majority of Liberals.
dmarks: ...he strongly agrees with Maher's "Religulous" film which was wall-to-wall religious hatred and bigotry.
I don't "strongly agree" with it at all. It showcases Maher's disbelief in religion, which, as a Christian, I do not share. Also, you didn't say if you actually watched the movie. I think you did not, or you wouldn't have inaccurately described it as "wall-to-wall religious hatred and bigotry". It wasn't that at all.
dmarks: [Religulous] sends people out into the streets foaming like mad dogs to kill those who do not have their same faith.
It does not. I watched it and it did not have that effect on me at all. You're lying and showing your hatred and intolerance toward those who don't agree with your decision to follow a religion.
dmarks: ...films like "Religulous" which appeal to the base, the unintellectual, the bully.
You're lying. There is no "base" for Religulous to appeal to. Non-believers are a minority and neither political party caters to them.
And the above is piece of evidence #8,916 that Will is no kind of conservative. Time to give your hollow claim that he is a rest, WD.
Will: I would suspect that WD's agreement will depend on how much Bill Maher likes to make ignorant and bigoted lies about Muslims too. And he has. But probably not as much as he slanders and bashes Mormons.
WD said: "You're lying. There is no "base" for Religulous to appeal to. Non-believers are a minority and neither political party caters to them."
I never mentioned non-believers. As Maher, is, of course, a believer in his own religious faith. His faith is a minority faith, for sure, but that does not give him an excuse to lie and slander and incite religious hatred.
Finally, WD said: "You're lying and showing your hatred and intolerance toward those who don't agree with your decision to follow a religion."
Not at all. I respect the decision of Maher and others like him to follow their religion. What I object to is their arrogance in their faith's superiority that leads them to lie about and mock and bash those who do not share their own religion.
In this aspect, Maher is as bad as any arrogant Ayatollah, Jerry Falwell, or other such religious bigot. Just an insecure bully, like them, who gets his jollies out of mocking and insulting and lying about others.
Will: wd, what if Ms. Behar had said a Muslim joke about a politician? Would that have been funny, too?
Huh? What does this question have to do with what Joy Behar said? Her comment was in regards to Mitt Romney's desire to cut public sector jobs including firefighters. I don't know why you bring up Muslims.
dmarks: And the above is piece of evidence #8,916 that Will is no kind of conservative. Time to give your hollow claim that he is a rest, WD.
It isn't. You're counting the same "evidence" multiple times. The amount of evidence that proves Will is a Conservative far outweighs the evidence that he isn't. He argues against the minimum wage, believes CEOs aren't overpaid (or that it isn't a big deal), favors job-killing free trade agreements, is opposed to "overtaxing" the wealthy (bazillions of posts on this topic alone), is in complete denial regarding how our economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy, is a defender of a war criminal president (bazillions more posts), criticizes mostly Liberal pundits, likes health savings accounts, constantly quotes Conservative and Libertarian writers, argues against unemployment insurance... and on and on.
Will being a Conservative is not a "hollow claim". The evidence is overwhelming.
dmarks: I never mentioned non-believers. As Maher, is, of course, a believer in his own religious faith.
You did. Atheists are non-believers. Bill Maher has no "religious faith".
dmarks: Well, something has dumbed you down and increased your bigotry. How else would you say that you agreed "100%" with Behar's Mormon-bashing?
She didn't Mormon-bash. I can't agree with something she never said.
Actually, you are counting views Will never expressed as evidence that he is conservative.
Will, do you favor job-killing free trade agreements?
"You did. Atheists are non-believers"
Maher is the type of atheist who asserts a faith. He's a believer, alright. You happen to agree with his faith, so you share his arrogance and condescension and make false claims about his lack of one.
dmarks: you are counting views Will never expressed as evidence that he is conservative.
You think Will is opposed to free trade? Ask him -- I predict he'll disagree with you.
dmarks: You happen to agree with his faith, so you share his arrogance and condescension and make false claims about his lack of one.
I disagree with it. I'm a Christian. Stop lying. Also, I can't agree with a faith someone does not have. It's quite impossible. I just respect his decision to not believe. Unlike dmarks who bashes him for it.
I don't know how official any of these labels are, wd, but to counter your cherry-picking with some of my own, the following. I believe that revenues should be a part of any overall deficit reduction package (that fact alone would get me kicked out of the present-day Republican party and you know it). I believe in a progressive taxation system and a return to the Clinton top tax rates. I was in favor of extending the unemployment benefits (the only caveat being additional auditing). I'm in favor of universal health insurance (health savings accounts being but ONE component to the overall plan that I submitted). I am pro-choice (though, no, not opposed to certain restrictions in the 3rd trimester). I am in favor of cutting military spending and vociferously opposed Mr. Obama's surge in Afghanistan. I am pro gay rights. I came out in favor of a negative income tax (and caught the disapproval of Rusty)............And you're being willfully dishonest in most of those characterizations. a) If Bush is a war criminal then so, too, are FDR, LBJ (60,000 dead Americans soldiers, wd), and Obama (say what you want about Chomsky, at least the fellow's intellectually honest). b) Free trade benefits just as many persons as it hurts and it almost caused the civil war to be fought 30 years earlier than it was. The construct isn't even as remotely clear cuts as you've described it and a lot of liberals (from FDR to Al Gore) have supported freer trade over the years as well. c) I've never made a blanket statement about CEO salaries. In fact, I believe that I said that, just like in any other position, some of them are overpaid and some of them are underpaid (though, yes, these are voluntary associations between private parties and it really isn't any of my business anyway). d) As I stated before, I was IN FAVOR (you liar) of extending the unemployment benefits. Yes, I did a post in which I quoted liberal economists saying one thing when they weren't in the political arena and contrasted that with what they said when they were. Yes, I did do that. But that was more to embarrass these pompous asses than it was to take a position. e) Yes, I think that the minimum wage hurts the economy and especially so young teenage minorities. I will in fact give you that one (that and the fact that I'd much rather listen to Thomas Sowell than the lunatic Paul Krugman).
WD said: "Huh? What does this question have to do with what Joy Behar said?"
It has a LOT to do with what Behar said. Will merely replaced "Mormon" (a religion you are ignorant and bigotted about) with "Muslim" (a religion you are more tolerant about). His substitution ended up proving a lot about your hypocrisy.
"Her comment was in regards to Mitt Romney's desire to cut public sector jobs including firefighters. I don't know why you bring up Muslims."
Here statement included Mormon-bashing as well, as you know it.
"The amount of evidence that proves Will is a Conservative far outweighs the evidence that he isn't."
There's simply no evidence that Will is a conservative. The proponderance of his views are either in the center, or to the left of it. Will listed many of his views in the later comment, in which he also pointed out that you lied about at least one of his left-of-center views, in order to paint him as a conservative.
"is a defender of a war criminal president"
He has yet to defend a war criminal. We are talking reality here, not your jokes about Bush.
WD lied: "You did. Atheists are non-believers. Bill Maher has no "religious faith".
He is of the type of atheist who has a religious faith. Sorry, WD, repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true.
"She didn't Mormon-bash. I can't agree with something she never said."
I quoted her Mormon-bashing. You aren't fooling anyone by claiming she didn't do it.
Anyway, I accept Bill Maher's religious faith, and support his right to believe. I do not support his arrogant condescension toward those who do not share his faith. I condemn him for being a religious bigot who bashes and lies just to be mean.
And I was indeed wrong about something: I did not know you were a Christian, WD. But it would seem, from your extreme insistence in the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites, that the only verse in your Bible is "Render unto Caesar".
dmarks: Will merely replaced "Mormon" (a religion you are ignorant and bigotted about) with "Muslim".... His substitution ended up proving a lot about your hypocrisy.
It proved nothing about my "hypocrisy" since the substitution makes no sense. Romney isn't a Muslim. Also, I'm not ignorant or bigotted about Mormons. Harry Reid is a Mormon and I support/would vote for him.
dmarks: Her statement included Mormon-bashing as well, as you know it.
I don't know it because I can't "know" something that is false. She said nothing bad about Mormons, she only brought up that he is a Mormon. Was it a "bash" when I mentioned that Harry Reid is a Mormon?
dmarks: There's simply no evidence that Will is a conservative. The preponderance of his views... [Also] you lied about at least one of his left-of-center views.
The preponderance of his views are Conservative. I told you what his Conservative views are (which I got from reading his blog). I don't know how you can keep denying the obvious. Also, I did not lie about one of Will's views. Will said he opposed unemployment insurance because "government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work". This is in a post where Will claimed to be quoting 3 Liberals, even though 2 of the three people he referenced aren't Liberal.
dmarks: He has yet to defend a war criminal. We are talking reality here, not your jokes about Bush.
I refer to reality here, not your jokes about bush not being a war criminal and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars being "already on".
dmarks: He is of the type of atheist who has a religious faith. Sorry, WD, repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true.
So, you're contending that he secretly worships a supreme being? What religion do you think he is secretly a member of? Is this like Barack Obama and his secretly being a Muslim?
dmarks: I quoted her Mormon-bashing. You aren't fooling anyone by claiming she didn't do it.
You quoted a sentence in which she said the word "Mormon". She didn't say anything bad about Mormons. You aren't fooling anyone by lying and saying she did.
dmarks: Anyway, I accept Bill Maher's religious faith, and support his right to believe.
In other words, you "support" his right to be a believer, but continue to bash him for being a non-believer (i.e. you just admitted your bigotry and intolerence toward anyone who chooses not to believe).
dmarks: from your extreme insistence in the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites, that the only verse in your Bible is "Render unto Caesar".
I believe in that one, but it certainly isn't the ONLY verse in my Bible. That's a ridiculous claim. Also, I strongly oppose this notion of "the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites". I belive the people should have the power, which is why I support democracy and not plutocracy (unlike you).
"Also, I strongly oppose this notion of "the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites".
That is all you ever do. For one good example, look at the one about buying a Hyundai. A decision that should be left to the people. You want the ruling elites to make this choice, not us.
Anyway, I call your bluff on something else: name the non-liberals that Will was quoting.
WD said: "In other words, you "support" his right to be a believer, but continue to bash him for being a [beleiver in his own faith]"
I have never ever once bashed Maher for his religious faith. He does the bashing for that, I do not.
"i.e. you just admitted your bigotry and intolerence toward anyone who chooses not to believe)."
We haven't even been discussing anyone who chooses not to believe. But for the record, I support agnostics (the actual non-believers) also.
Maher himself is indeed a religious man, as he asserts a religious belief: a faith that there is "no God". Viewed objectively, such faith assertions are always religious. The ones who lack belief, lack faith, are the ones who say "I don't know".
dmarks: That is all you ever do. ...look at the one about buying a Hyundai. A decision that should be left to the people. You want the ruling elites to make this choice, not us.
I've never done it. Not even once. As for trade, I believe that should be decided by the people... by them voting for the elected representative that they agree with. I believe the people should decide, not the plutocrats (unlike you).
dmarks: Anyway, I call your bluff on something else: name the non-liberals that Will was quoting. I bet you can't.
Of course I can. In fact, I already did... just follow the link I provided earlier and read my comment. The non-Liberals he quoted are Lawrence Summers and Alan Krueger. Of course you're going to lie and say they are Liberals (like you lie about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama being Liberals... and you'll probably say something nonsensical about "measuring from the center"), but they are not. They're all Conservative to Moderate Democrats.
dmarks: I have never ever once bashed Maher for his religious faith. He does the bashing for that, I do not.
I never claimed that you did because he doesn't have one. You're bashing him for being a non-believer.
dmarks: We haven't even been discussing anyone who chooses not to believe. But for the record, I support agnostics (the actual non-believers) also.
Of course we are. The person who choses not to believe is Bill Maher.
dmarks: Maher himself is indeed a religious man, as he asserts a religious belief: a faith that there is "no God". Viewed objectively, such faith assertions are always religious. The ones who lack belief, lack faith, are the ones who say "I don't know".
Actually, he describes himself as an "apatheist", which is "also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism. [It] is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist".
So your description of "strong athiest" is not accurate. And FYI, the purpose of "Religulous" is not to disprove the existence of God, but to "spoof religious extremism across the world".
Also, we were discussing you lying about Joy Behar "bashing" Mormons. I challenged you to tell me what the bad thing she said about Mormons was. Obviously you couldn't do it, which is why you changed the subject to Bill Maher.
"I've never done it. Not even once. As for trade, I believe that should be decided by the people... by them voting for the elected representative that they agree with."
That's really crazy. In the case of the Hyundai, why not let the people directly choose? A vote is not necessary at all.
"And FYI, the purpose of "Religulous" is not to disprove the existence of God, but to "spoof religious extremism across the world"."
And how better to do this than to present, by example of its very makers, religious bigotry, extremism, and hatred?
"Also, we were discussing you lying about Joy Behar bashing Mormons."
I never did this. I presented what she actually said: her own silly rant that started by calling for violence against Romney and/or his family, continued lying about how how many homes he has, and ending with the "Mormon fire patrol" smear.
And it is a smear. You are the one who tried to change the subject, mentioning your personal belief that Obama is a secret Muslim.
dmarks: That's really crazy. In the case of the Hyundai, why not let the people directly choose? A vote is not necessary at all.
It is really rational to not allow people to directly choose. The Founders knew trade decisions should be made by countries and not individuals, which is why they said tariffs should be collected (and wrote that into the Constitution). Your way assures that many American jobs are destroyed and puts all the decisions on this issue into the hands of the plutocrats. That's really super crazy.
dmarks: And how better to do this than to present, by example of its very makers, religious bigotry, extremism, and hatred?
I watched the movie. I strongly disagree with your chacterization of the movie. Read the reviews of the movie at Wikipedia... nobody describes the movie in this manner.
dmarks lied: ...calling for violence against Romney and/or his family, continued lying about how how many homes he has, and ending with the "Mormon fire patrol" smear.
She never called for violence. She did not lie about how many homes Romney has, she made a joke. And referring to a "Mormon fire patrol" isn't a smear.
dmarks lied: ...mentioning your personal belief that Obama is a secret Muslim.
President Obama is a Christian. I hold no such "personal belief". And you changed the subject again. I asked you what deity Bill Maher worships. You know he worships none so you dodged the question.
You're a liar, wd. That post had only the quotations of Democratic individuals before they entered politics. And I only posted it to show how certain individuals think when they have the intellectual freedom to say things and of how these same beliefs change when they enter into politics.......Back when the debate was roaring about extending unemployment benefits, I came out strongly in favor of doing so. Yes, I said that maybe we needed to do more audits to make sure that people truly ARE looking but when it came to the bottom line, I strongly came out in favor them. What a frigging little liar you are.
WD said: "It is really rational to not allow people to directly choose."
That is the most rational choice of all.
"The Founders knew trade decisions should be made by countries and not individuals"
No, they did not. You are making thigns up
"which is why they said tariffs should be collected (and wrote that into the Constitution)."
They ALLOW for tariffs. They don't say that Congress should tariff much at all, or even anything.
"Your way assures that many American jobs are destroyed"
More like 0 jobs. Actually, my example ensures that American jobs are GAINED. Hyundai happens to be employing a larger and larger number of American workers to build cars in the US. A very large number of them, in fact.
"and puts all the decisions on this issue into the hands of the plutocrats."
The plutocrats are irrelevant in this. As in my example, I was talking about the informed choice of the average American to choose to by a Hyundai. In "Occupy" terms, that is a choice of the 99%, not 1%.
"I watched the movie. I strongly disagree with your chacterization of the movie. Read the reviews of the movie at Wikipedia... nobody describes the movie in this manner."
The first thing I found when researching this movie were plenty of negative reviews and lists of the facts it got wrong.
"marks lied"
Actually, I told the truth. Behar's call for violence, lie about the # of homes, and Mormon bashing are all a matter of public record.
"She never called for violence."
She did. I quoted her.
"She did not lie about how many homes Romney has, she made a joke."
Calling it a 'joke' does not excuse a mega whopper. Honestly, the is the first time I have ever seen anyone look at a colossal lie and try to excuse it by saying it was a joke.
The facts? Romney has 3 houses. Behar claimed he has some indeterminate number that starts, at a minimum, of one-and-one-half million homes.
What Behar said was not true. Thus, a lie.
"And referring to a "Mormon fire patrol" isn't a smear."
Only a religious bigot would make your claim.
"dmarks [told the truth].mentioning your personal belief that Obama is a secret Muslim.
P"resident Obama is a Christian."
Then why did you say he was a Muslim?
"I asked you what deity Bill Maher worships. You know he worships none so you dodged the question."
No, I didn't. Some strong religious faiths, such as Maher's, do not include a deity. Your question was, to put it bluntly, ignorant and stupid.
Asking what deity a religious Atheist believes in is as boneheaded as asking a Jew what Catholic saints he reveres, or a Shintoist what part of Islamic law she follows.
Because, as everyone knows, the faith of the strong Atheist is in "no deity".
Will: You're a liar, wd. That post had only the quotations of Democratic individuals before they entered politics. And I only posted it to show [blah, blah, blah]...
Your post contained none of this explaination. I assumed (as anyone would) that you posted the comments because you agreed with them.
Me making the wrong assumption because you failed to explain why you were posting those quotes (if you're being honest about why you posted the quotes) does not make me a liar. And you know it. Therefore you're the one who is lying.
dmarks: No, they did not. You are making things up.
You're making things up. I already quoted you the portion of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to assess tariffs. You can wish all you want that it isn't in there, but that does not change the fact that it is.
dmarks: They ALLOW for tariffs. They don't say that Congress should tariff much at all, or even anything.
So you think it's in there for absolutely no reason? BTW, it doesn't say the federal government can assess tariffs but that it shouldn't. That's why it's in there, because the Founders believed tariffs SHOULD be assessed. Proof of that is the fact that they did.
dmarks: More like 0 jobs. Actually, my example ensures that American jobs are GAINED.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost due to NAFTA. Look it up. Your ignorance doesn't change the facts.
dmarks lied: [Joy Behar called for violence.] I quoted her.
You're thinking of what YOU wrote. You're the one who brought up violence and arson. Joy Behar mentioned neither. Reread the quote and you'll find none of that is in there.
dmarks: Calling it a 'joke' does not excuse a mega whopper. Honestly, the is the first time I have ever seen anyone look at a colossal lie and try to excuse it by saying it was a joke.
dmarks is telling a mega whopper, which is that what Joy Behar said wasn't a joke. You pretending to not know it was a joke does not excuse your ridiculous lie. dmarks is only making himself look dumber and dumber the longer he continues to say Joy Behar "lied" about Romney having millions of homes.
This has got to be the dumbest claim I've ever encountered... that an obvious joke is a "lie".
dmarks: Then why did you say he was a Muslim?
I didn't. I said (in reference to your claim that Bill Maher has a "religous faith", "Is this like Barack Obama and his secretly being a Muslim?" I was referring to the LIE that he is a secret Muslim. Do you ALWAYS take people 100 percent literally?
I'm going to guess no. I think you only do it if it gives you an opportunity to attack someone you don't like. I find this habit of yours to be extremely dishonest.
dmarks: Because, as everyone knows, the faith of the strong Atheist is in "no deity".
You haven't proven that Bill Maher is a "strong atheist". In fact, I provided evidence to the contrary.
The definition of atheism says that it, "is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist...".
"Absense of belief"... just like I said.
Also, "the term atheism originated from the Greek atheos, meaning 'without god', used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society".
You said Bill Maher has a "religious faith", therefore I asked you what deity he worships. This is when you realized you had been tripped up by your own BS and frantically came up with some nonsense about Jews revering Catholic saints. dmarks should stop digging.
WD said: "You're making things up. I already quoted you the portion of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to assess tariffs"
So? But it never says that Congress must impose tariffs. The problem here is that you think that just because the Constitution gives the rulers permission to do something, then they must do it. That's illogical and completely ignorant of civics.
The Constitution also gives Congress permission to declare war. Using your logic, this means that the Congress must declare war all the time against everyone.
But... in reality.... tariffs, like war, are very risky and destructive. It is only prudent to impose either of these rarely, if at all.
"I didn't. I said (in reference to your claim that Bill Maher has a religous faith,"
As we are discussion the religion Maher actually has, there are no quotes necessary around "religious faith"
"Do you ALWAYS take people 100 percent literally?"
Well, excuse me for assuming that people are attempting to tell the truth in these things, instead of lying for the hell of it.
"You said Bill Maher has a religious faith, therefore I asked you what deity he worships. This is when you realized you had been tripped up by your own BS"
Not at all. Because those in the strong Atheist faith don't merely lack belief, they assert a religious belief concerning deity.
"...frantically came up with some nonsense about Jews revering Catholic saints. dmarks should stop digging."
No, that was not 'digging'. I was merely proving how close-minded you were about the nature of religion. And I did so quite handily.
"If I'm being honest" Fuck you you miserable little bitch. I had made it clear on numerous other occasions of my support for the extension of those benefits (you remember all of my conservative positions by heart but conveniently forget the other ones). On one thread I even got Rusty mad at me.......And one of those Democratic academics that I quoted was fucking Paul Krugman. You gonna tell me that he's not a liberal?
dmarks: So? But it never says that Congress must impose tariffs.
So? Obviously they put it in there because they believed the federal government SHOULD impose tariffs. Proof of that is the fact that they did.
dmarks: The problem here is that you think that just because the Constitution gives the rulers permission to do something, then they must do it. That's illogical and completely ignorant of civics.
You're making things up. I never used the word "must". We should use them to protect our jobs. You want to destroy jobs and I think we should try to save them. Most Americans agree with my point of view and disagree with dmarks' wealthy worshipping point of view.
dmarks: The Constitution also gives Congress permission to declare war. Using your logic, this means that the Congress must declare war all the time against everyone.
That isn't my logic, although I do believe only Congress (and not the president) should be able to go to war.
dmarks lied: But, in reality, tariffs, like war, are very risky and destructive.
Bullshit. You don't believe that at all. I say this because you were VERY eager to wage unnecessary, risky and destructive wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. And tariffs have been in place for most of our history (and have paid most of the cost of running the federal government), thus you claiming tariffs are "risky and destructive" is laughable.
dmarks: As we are discussing the religion Maher actually has...
I'm not discussing that. Because it would be impossible to discuss something Bill Maher doesn't have.
dmarks: Well, excuse me for assuming that people are attempting to tell the truth in these things, instead of lying for the hell of it.
What a load of crap. People misspeak, use sarcasm, make jokes... and dmarks LIES and pretends they meant what they said literally... so he can bash them for it. But it only makes dmarks look very dumb... because everybody else recgonizes that people misspeak, use sarcasm, and make jokes.
dmarks: Not at all. Because those in the strong Atheist faith don't merely lack belief, they assert a religious belief concerning [the existence of a] deity.
What does religion have to do with it? What church does Bill Maher attend?
dmarks: No, that was not 'digging'. I was merely proving how close-minded you were about the nature of religion. And I did so quite handily.
Not at all. And you still haven't explained to me how what Joy Behar said about Mormons was bad. That they might have their own fire department? Do you think fire departments are bad?
Because you're a dishonest idiot who constantly avoids inconvenient facts such as Krugman saying this, Chomsky saying that Obama is in many ways worse than Bush, and FDR carpet-bombing and turning to bacon hundreds of thousands of babies, women, and the elderly. That's why.
It must be pointed out that US manufacturing jobs were declining fast before NAFTA. After it was passed, the decline actually slowed down. NAFTA put the breaks on job decline.
I welcome WD's decision to refuse to buy things made in Mexico, out of his ignorance and fear of Mexicans. But I resent his arrogance in wanting to force his decision on others, and his support for arrogant meddling in these personal decisions by ignorant and power-hungry individuals whol are elected.
I side with the many many millions of workers who would be fired if WD had his way and exports from the US were cut off due to trade wars. I also stand with Americans who have the right to make their own informed trade decisions, no thanks to people like WD and Pat Buchanan.
The right of Congress to pass tariffs is a worthless historic relic like the idea that slaves were worth a fraction of a person. Both bad ideas left in the past.
By the way, last time I checked Romney has no more homes than Obama. Three. Behar's 'joke' fails in all ways. The idea that Romney is out of touch is a hardcore partisan idea anyway: baed on partisan bias and not fact, just like similar claims about Obama.
The joke in the parent post works because the photo has Behar looking something like a chicken. The three=millions joke fails completely because there is no resemblance between the numbers at all. What sort of moron would laugh at that?
What about you ignoring bush turning hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and babies to bacon? And that was in a totally unnecessary war of choice. All you can say is that he was a bad president and Iraq might have been a bad idea. Unbelievable.
And what "joke" is dmarks referring to? Obviously Will stole that picture from some other website... another website where the writer lied about having "scientific proof" that Joy Behar is a chicken. Of course (because dmarks does not like Joy Behar) he says this "joke" is a good one.
You have a good point: the Behar physical appearance jab is kind of lame. But it is a lot more reality-based than Behar's beyond-over-the-top exaggeration.
dmarks: But it is a lot more reality-based than Behar's beyond-over-the-top exaggeration.
Wrong. Joy Behar is no kind of bird, she is a human. This "joke" isn't at all "reality based".
The houses joke is very much reality based. Mitt Romney has millions of dollars. What she did was replace the word "dollars" with "houses". That is why it is funny.
dmarks: Oh. Must be one of those 'crazy high numers far removed from reality' jokes you find so funny.
Oh. dmarks must be making a "joke". Because he knows I'm referring to the Lancet survey that puts the number of Iraqi dead at 1.4 million. I would NEVER joke about how many innocents the mass murderer bush is responsible for.
dmarks: The right of Congress to pass tariffs is a worthless historic relic like the idea that slaves were worth a fraction of a person. Both bad ideas left in the past.
Tariffs are not a "historic relic". The 3/4ths a person was voided via a Constitutional amendment... while the power to assess tariffs was NOT. The fact is we still assess tariffs. The only problem is that they are far to low.
WD asked: "What does religion have to do with it? What church does Bill Maher attend?"
Seems WD was spending too much time on the playground in 3rd grade flicking boogera and getting pantsed, that he missed his social studies class.
If he had gone, he might have learned that there are billions of religious people who adhere to the diverse faiths of the world... and only a minority of them go to church.
"Because he knows I'm referring to the Lancet survey that puts the number of Iraqi dead at 1.4 million. I would NEVER joke about how many innocents the mass murderer bush is responsible for."
Since there is no evidence of Bush doing any "mass murder', this looks again like another "Bush is a war criminal" joke.
The Lancet "Study" itself is not serious, really. It is the only Iraq war casualty created by someone whose shoddy ethics and accuracy in creating such studies has caused him to be barred from making more.
"The fact is we still assess tariffs. The only problem is that they are far to low."
Low tariffs = less fascism (a less powerful ruling State)
High tariffs = more fascism. The ruling elites robbing the 99% even more.
I go with the low tariffs. We don't need them. Contrary to your belief, American workers aren't inferior slackers that can't compete on the world stage without ridiculous fascistic laws to back them up.
The Founding Fathers weren't fascists dmarks. I suggest you look this word up... apparently dmarks thinks "fascism" means "anything dmarks disagrees with". He may as well said "low tariffs = more stuff I like" and "high tariffs = more stuff I don't like"... and then said the founders were "poopy pants".
And I don't think American workers are "inferior slackers", I think they live somewhere where the cost of living is significantly higher than in these low wage countries you want all our jobs outsourced to (so the plutocrats can get even richer).
And I've never flicked boggera at anyone. I did pants you though, when I metaphorically pulled down your pants and exposed the yellow and brown stains on your undies... stains representing the lies you've been telling about Bill Maher's "religion".
Also, bush is responsible for mass murder no matter what figures you accept... both the incorrect figures you say are right and the more correct ones put forward by the Lancet... both are very high. And you may find war crimes funny, but no one else does.
War crimes aren't funny, but we aren't discussing any. As there is no evidence of any from Bush. But what is funny is your Bush Derangement Syndrome and your inability to say anything true about the man.
dmarks: War crimes aren't funny, but we aren't discussing any. As there is no evidence of any from Bush.
We *ARE* discussing bush's war crimes... try to keep up. According to the article that Jerry linked to, "the head of the U.N.'s human rights arm is demanding that the torture investigation go to the very top [bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc]...
I thought dmarks said the UN "laughed" and dismissed the very suggestion that the bush administration is guilty of war crimes?? Now, this statement was from 2009, so it appears as though the investigation was squashed by the Obama Administration, just like they pressured Spain not to go ahead with their trial.
dmarks' claims that because no investigations or trials have been conducted -- that proves bush's innocence... it's all complete BS. People did want to investigate and hold trials... but were heavily leaned on by the Obama administration not to.
WD said "We *ARE* discussing bush's war crimes..."
None exist, so there are none to discuss. But we can laugh at your conjuring the idea of them out of whole cloth.
"According to the article that Jerry linked to..."
The article Jerry linked to was a fake proceeding. A Kangaroo court, hosted in a rabidly anti-semitic nation that has a reputation of supporting terrorists. No legitimate nation wanted to be associated with. Like the extremist Islamic "court" you wanted Bin Laden to be turned over to, this "court" has no more standing than high school Model UN.
Amazing that you confuse this with the real UN.
"I thought dmarks said the UN "laughed" and dismissed the very suggestion that the bush administration is guilty of war crimes??"
This is very true.
"Now, this statement was from 2009, so it appears as though the investigation was squashed by the Obama Administration"
More nutty conspiracy claims about Obama.
"just like they pressured Spain not to go ahead with their trial."
Trials typically don't happen because the prosecution has no case at all, not because of nutty conspiracy theories.
"dmarks' claims that because no investigations or trials have been conducted -- that proves bush's innocence..."
That is also true. It shows I am also informed about the "innocent until proven guilty" principle
"it's all complete BS."
That is no more than your bizarre claim that the lack of any convictions proves Bush's guilt.
"People did want to investigate and hold trials... but were heavily leaned on by the Obama administration not to."
It's pretty bad when you slander Bush, but it makes even less sense when you slander Obama too.
An earlier actual quote showed Behar wishing for a violent crime (arson) to be perpetrated against Romney and/or his family, her lying about the number of houses he had, and her making a mild but definite slam against his Mormon faith.
In defending the lie (the middle part of Behar's rant), you have claimed the following as part of defending the idea that it is a "joke"
1) She was talking about how out of touch Romney is.
2) She was referring to how he had too many houses.
3) She was referring not to how she had too many houses, but how he had millions of dollars.
------------
Thanks for proving that it wasn't a joke by you flopping about like a fish stranded on the dock making wild, shifting, and inconsistent guesses as to what the "joke" actually was.
101 comments:
Another boring redux. And criticizing someone for their looks is in poor taste. I think it says far more about you than it does about her. Not that Joy Behar has anything to be embarrassed about. I think she is fairly good looking.
FYI, Joy Behar is starting a new program on Current in the fall. I'll be watching.
I don't understand the question. Except for the glasses, I think they look kind of alike.
It's all in good fun, wd. And it isn't just the disparity in looks that I was referring to. I was also referring to the disparity in brain power.......Jerry, I think that maybe you need glasses.
Maybe she could interview David Voth and other such miscreants who currently find themselves in the stew.......Oh, wait a minute, that's already been done. And, plus, she'd also have to deal with those same corporate lackeys who so unceremoniously dumped Mr. Olbermann.
The fact that Current TV has a total of 16 viewers is just proof that the system is rigged.
I'm so shameless, Russ, if Current TV ever hired Ashleigh Banfield, I would make it 17. Reeeoow.
The past few days in Las Vegas there was a charity event that did'nt get much pub,except for ESPN.
Guy Laliberte the founder of Circ de Soleil had an idea for a fund raiser for his charity One Drop.It was the largest poker tournament ever held.The buy in was $1,000,000.48 players each ponied up a million,the winner received 18.4 million dollars but the charity got close to seven million dollars.It was held at the Rio and was heart warming to see both gamblers and businessmen put their money up for a very worthwhile charity.
That old saying..."men dont make passes at women in glasses"...does'nt hold true when it comes to Ms.Banfield.
Hey Will,did you see that Steve Nash is going to the Lakers.
Amen on all 3 of those comments, Russ (providing, of course, that Mr. Bryant is willing to share the ball).
It was Bryant who brokered the deal according to ESPN.
I'd bet a dollar Andy Bynum goes next and World Peace.
And three of those tuned in by mistake thinking it had shows about electricity.
As for Behar, remember she is the one that called for people to commot the crime of arson and burn down Romney's house. Which might have been dangerous had she had an audience.
Actually, Russ, Kobe will get much better shots with Steve Nash intravenously feeding him. So, yeah, I do kinda understand it from that perspective.............I can't believe the stuff that she gets away with, dmarks. Of course, the most unpardonable crime of all is the fact that she just isn't funny.
Calling for violent assault against the family of someone just because they have a 'R' after their name instead of a 'D' is sooooo funny.
That's typical 'opinion journalism' for you.
dmarks: As for Behar, remember she is the one that called for people to commit the crime of arson and burn down Romney's house.
She did not say that. She said WHAT IF Romney's house caught on fire. It was a comment made in response to these news stories of late where the fire department lets people's homes burn down because they didn't pay a fee.
If Hannity had made the same outrageous statements in favor of this type of action against Obama and his house, you would be all over his case. And rightly so. But since Behar is 'on your side' you give her a free pass.
Give her a pass? No way! That's far to passive a way to put how I feel about what she said. I agree 100 percent and applaud her for saying it.
WD said: "She said WHAT IF Romney's house caught on fire"
Actually, here is what she said. The complete statement. There is nothing like a "what if" in it, let alone one that is capitalized or emphasized in any way:
I mean, I'd like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down. Who's he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?
Let's look at her actual words. She indicated a preference to see his house burn. Something she'd like. From an influential talk show host, this would could easily be taken as a call for her audience to make something reality. This is obvious. I mean, look at Oprah and her book recommendations. If Oprah had said she would like the home of someone she didn't like torched, it would likely happen. The only reason this is less of a danger with Behar is because her audience is rather small. However, that does not absolve her for the blame of making this threat/demand.
Let's move on to the next part of her statement. Behar claims that Romney has millions of homes. Using the usual conventions for rounding numbers, this would mean at a minimum that she is stating that Romney has 1,750,000 or more houses.
Is this true? According to PolitiFact, Romney owns just three houses. Yes, three. Not only is Behar off with her figures, she is off by a staggering amount: a factor of more than 583,000. Either she is a liar, or she suffers from http://math.about.com/cs/reference/a/discalcula.htm. Regardless, this part of her statement, like the first, is well below any standards, let alone journalistic ones.
Perhaps she could be sent out on assignment, not to return until she has a report, including photo, of 100 of Romney's homes. Since she is stating that each state has at least 35,000 Romney homes, this should be easy for her to do.
Or perhaps Current TV can pay her a salary of three dollars a year, instead of the 7 figures she is likely receiving. According to Behar, the difference between the amounts is negligible.
(continued)
Finally, there is the third part of her statement, about the "Mormon fire department". This is undeniably an example of religious bigotry on her part: equilevant to bashing Mayor Bloomberg for going to a "Jew barber".
So, what do we have here? A three part statement that does not include "WHAT IF", but does include a call to violence, a huge whopper of a lie about how many houses Romney owns, and ends with her trying to be "cute" by bashing Romney for his faith.
WD said "I agree 100 percent and applaud her for saying it.", which means that WD likes to incite violence, can't count, and is a religious bigot. Well, he did say 100%.
Rusty summarized Behar as follows: "People like them who just screech the craziest shit without knowing shit just make fools of themselves". Will said "I can't believe the stuff that she gets away with, dmarks"
Rusty and Will rightfully condemn this woman's outrageous statements, while WD agrees 100% with them.
I will leave this with a challenge for WD, who agrees with Behar that Romney has "millions" of houses, to document any sort of proof. I will even be generous, and allow a low 'rounding' factor of 1,500,000 homes. After all, WD agreed with Behar's statement one-hundred percent. It should be easy for him to substantiate this.
Wow, dmarks, you're right; an attack, a lie, and slur all rolled into one. Methinks that she just might hate Mr. Romney a tad TOO much.
Joy Behar's comment was made after Romney's remarks about cutting public sector jobs. What she said was NOT meant literally. She meant, WHAT IF his home caught fire and there were no firemen to put it out (because they were fired like Romney suggested they should be)?
Also, Romney is a Mormon... yea, he does not mention it because he knows it is a negative with his evangelical Christian base, but he really is a Mormon. I don't know how stating a fact is a slur.
dmarks: I will leave this with a challenge for WD, who agrees with Behar that Romney has "millions" of houses, to document any sort of proof. I will even be generous...
I think you're being serious here... I mean, you are that dense... to not be able to recognize a joke.
Will: Wow, dmarks, you're right; an attack, a lie, and slur all rolled into one.
It's none of those things. The comment was about Romney being out of touch with regular people (the "millions of homes" JOKE) and a observation about the stupidity of attacking public sector workers who perform services we need.
"I mean, I'd like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down. Who's he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?" Yeah, I don't know, wd. That doesn't sound a little too harsh to you? And does Romney really want to fire all the firemen? Or just the ones that we may not necessarily need?
Obviously the firemen we need are the ones who would put out fires at the homes of rich people... and the ones we may not necessarily need are ones who would put out fires at the homes of non-wealthy people.
And your evidence for this statement is what? New York City has about a bazillion firemen and vast percentage of them DO NOT put out fires in Midtown Manhattan and the Upper East Side.
Mitt Romney has 3 houses, and it is a 'joke' for Behar to say he has at least 1,750,000 homes.
Is anyone laughing, except at Behar's innumeracy? Anyone?
Something tells me that she is not replacing Leno anytime soon.
So, dmarks, why say nothing when Will claims NY has a "bazillion" firemen? Why not go on and on about Will not being able to count... and then challenge him to prove his "bazillion" claim?
The only reason dmarks goes after Behar is because she dared poke fun at his beloved Romney. Also, I laughed at Joy Behar's joke, as I'm sure many others did... but only non-wealthy worshipers. I can understand why wealthy worshipers would be offended.
"Bazillion" is not a real number. "Millions" is.
"The only reason dmarks goes after Behar..."
I call you on your lie. As I said earlier, if Limbaugh had been calling for people to burn down on of Obama's homes the way Behar was, I would condemn him strongly on it. And I have called Limbaugh before for bashing Obama for his supposed religion. And it does not matter to me if there is a (D) after someone's name or an (R) if they are lying about how many homes someone has for effect.
OK, here we go. WD and Behar don't care what words mean, or about real math, but I do.
From the dictionary:
Bazillion: "a large indeterminate number"
Million: "The number equivalent to the product of a thousand and a thousand; 1,000,000 or 106: "a million people"."
There's nothing to call Will on it at all, so I missed nothing.
Now, let's suppose Behar had said a "bazillion" instead of "millions". This vagueness might have saved her, but when you think about it, who in their right mind would say that Romney's sum total of three homes (a well known verified number) is either "large" or "indeterminate"
WD said: "She meant, WHAT IF his home caught fire"
Twice earlier, you said emphatically that she said "what if" Looking at her real quote, she neither said 'what if', nor anything that could be paraphrased this way
Now you have retreated to "she meant", which is pure imagination and speculation. We can't go by what someone wishes she would have said. Let's instead look at what she said.
WD mentiuoned: "...wealthy worshipers..."
This is also irrelevant. I don't worship Romney and his wealth. Nor am I bent out of shape with jealousy, or have any desire (as Behar does) to see people commit violent assaultive crimes against Romney and his family.
Three houses, a bazillion, or millions: it's his business, not mine.
Exaggerating a number for comedic effect isn't a lie. Anyone who heard Behar's words knows nobody owns millions of homes. You not getting the joke does't make it not a joke. And it certainly doesn't make what she said a "lie".
It was a joke and everybody knows it. The more you lie about this the dumber you look.
dmarks: Twice earlier, you said emphatically that she said "what if" Looking at her real quote, she neither said 'what if', nor anything that could be paraphrased this way.
I said it once, and I was misremembering what she said. Although I did remember that what you claimed was false. It's extremely clear that she isn't actually wishing Mitt Romney's home (any of them) to burn because she used the word "millions". Everyone knows nobody has ever owned millions of homes, therefore we know she's making a joke.
What she did was use humor to point out the stupidity of firing needed public servants. Public servants Mitt Romney would need if his home were to catch fire. Intelligent people know this. As for partisan liars and the dupes they lie to (like dmarks)... that's another matter.
Also, if she were to wish something bad to happen to Romney it would be something bad that would cause him to drop out of the race. His house buring down wouldn't do that, unless he were still in it, and she didn't say anything about wanting him to be in his house when it burned.
BTW, "bazillion" isn't indeterminate, it's infinite. So what's going on here is that Will says NY has an infinite number of firefighters and dmarks gives him a pass because of their shared conservative ideology, but he attacks Joy Behar because she's a Democrat... even though he knows what she said was a joke.
WD said: "It's extremely clear that she isn't actually wishing Mitt Romney's home (any of them) to burn "
Again, it is a matter of what you wished she had said, or hadn't said... in great contrast with what she really did say.
What did she say? "I'd like to see his house burn".
That's the word "like". In this context, it is a synonym for wish (the meanings are so close).
"Also, if she were to wish something bad to happen to Romney..."
She DID wish something to happen. People often do die in house fires. Arson, the crime she was wishing for, is a considered to be an assaultive felony.
"BTW, "bazillion" isn't indeterminate,"
You are wrong. I quoted the dictionary earlier: it is indeterminate.
"So what's going on here is that Will says NY has an infinite number "
Correction: He used the word "bazillion", which means "a large indeterminate number"
"dmarks gives him a pass because of their shared conservative ideology"
Correction: He's a moderate and not a conservative. I'm a conservative and not a moderate. We have no shared ideology.
You are slipping, WD. You get pretty much everything wrong in one comment, and result to a lame insult in the next.
dmarks: ...it is a matter of what you wished she had said, or hadn't said... in great contrast with what she really did say.
Correction 1: It's a matter of what she meant, which we know because nobody has millions of homes. That's how we know she was making a joke.
Correction 2: I do NOT wish she had said something else. Because that would eliminate a funny joke, and also the statements from Conservatives who know what she meant outing themselves as liars or idiots (if they think she really meant it).
dmarks: She DID wish something to happen. People often do die in house fires. Arson, the crime she was wishing for, is a considered to be an assaultive felony.
Correction 1: No, it was a joke.
Correction 2: She didn't say anything about arson. Homes can burn down for many other reasons. You're stating something you wish she had said and not what she really said.
dmarks: Correction: He used the word "bazillion", which means "a large indeterminate number".
Correction: "bazillion" means an infinite number. I looked it up.
dmarks quoting me: Also, if she were to wish something bad to happen to Romney...
You changed the meaning of what I said by cutting the quote short (i.e. you lied). The rest of it said "...that would cause him to drop out of the race". She said absolutely nothing about arson or Romney being in the house when it burned.
dmarks: He's a moderate and not a conservative. I'm a conservative and not a moderate. We have no shared ideology.
Correction: He's a Conservative who misidentifies as a moderate. Virtually everything he advocates for is Conservative in nature. I know this because I've read his blog.
dmarks: You get pretty much everything wrong in one comment, and result to a lame insult in the next.
Correction 1: I got everything right. You're the one who got everything wrong.
Correction 2: You are an idiot. Your insistence that we ignore what Joy Behar actually meant is proof of that.
I am discussing what Behar actually said, and WD is making up right and left what he thinks she meant. The latter is meaningless.
"It's a matter of what she meant, which we know because nobody has millions of homes"
Why wasn't she just accurate, instead of saying sh... er stuff without any regard to its meaning?
As for her wishing people to torch Romney's home not being threatening to Romney's family, you are apparently unaware of the fact of why arson of dwelling is considered to be an assaultive crime. She said plenty about arson: she wished for it.
You are defending the indefensible in all ways: from her call for violence, to her lying about the houses, to her bashing his faith.
And on that last one: most of the Mormon-bashing I see in regards to Romney comes from heft-wingers, not 'evangelicals'.
dmarks: I am discussing what Behar actually said, and WD is making up right and left what he thinks she meant.
Mediaite: ...it seems [Joy Behar] isn't entitled to a reasonable person's interpretation of her remark, which was clearly meant to raise a hypothetical in response to Romney's call for fewer firemen, as in "I'd like to see what would happen if Mitt Romney's house caught fire. Who's he going to call since he doesn't want more firemen?"
...what this ...really illustrates is the right wing's screwed up sense of priorities. They're at once outraged by what they all recognize as a joke... Not one of them, however, is outraged that Mitt Romney opposes hiring back any of the 700,000 cops, firemen, teachers, and other public servants who have been sacrificed to protect Romney's own 13-14% tax rate, or the real houses that could burn down as a result. [end excerpt from Mediaite]
Also, I saw her explain these comments herself on Current, and she said the same thing as the Mediaite author.
dmarks is the one making up stuff left and right with no regard to the facts.
dmarks: As for her wishing people to torch Romney's home... She said plenty about arson: she wished for it.
You're lying. You quoted her exact words and she never said "arson".
dmarks: You are defending the indefensible in all ways: from her call for violence, to her lying about the houses, to her bashing his faith.
There was no call for violence, lying about houses, or bashing of Romney's faith. I can't defend things that didn't happen.
dmarks: ...most of the Mormon-bashing I see in regards to Romney comes from heft-wingers, not 'evangelicals'.
That's why Romney says nothing about being Mormon... they have beliefs right wing Christians would find strange. Look it up if you don't believe me. Also, I have no idea who these "heft-wingers" you refer to are.
"dmarks is the one making up stuff left and right with no regard to the facts."
Incorrect. Find where I am doing this? You can't. I am sticking to what she actually said. You can't accuse me of having no regard to the facts when I stick to what she said.
You still ignore what she said. Instead, you find a leftist blog that has your "spin" and refer to how Behar, confronted with the fact that her statement was as Will said, an attack lie and smear all in one, has been trying to backtrack.
"You're lying. You quoted her exact words and she never said "arson"."
No, I am telling the truth. She did not use the word "arson", but her expressing her wishes to her audience for Romney's house to be torched does meet the definition of arson.
And yes, there was a call for violence, followed by lying about the total # of houses, followed by her bashing him for being Mormon. As so many on the Left happen to do.
The Left bashing Romney for his faith is quite common, and not limited to Behar. Bill Maher, a leftist and a major religious bigot, likes to do this a lot.
So much for your statement of "Also, I have no idea who these "heft-wingers" you refer to are."
You know who Maher is, and you aren't fooling anyone.
Also, the link you provided, WD, shows examples of left-wing bigotry against Mormons. Did you even bother to read it?
The final comment is this:
"I heard that part of your interview played on Hannity's Hour of Hate, TC, and I thought Behar trying to make a point about Willard's policy on firefighters using the MORmON fire patrol to try to save one of Willard's millions of home from burning funny as well. Faux outrage by right wingers, once again..continually missing the real point."
Yet another example of a left-wing religious bigot going after Romney's faith.
dmarks: Incorrect. Find where I am doing this? You can't.
I can. You lied about Joy Behar calling for Romney's house to be burned down by arson. You made that up out of whole cloth. It is a complete invention of your imagination.
dmarks: Behar, confronted with the fact that her statement was... an attack lie and smear all in one, has been trying to backtrack.
She isn't trying to backtrack. She stands by what she said and doesn't give a damn about how the Right wing is spinning her words to try and make her look bad. She probably finds it quite amusing... as do I.
dmarks: No, I am telling the truth. She did not use the word "arson", but her expressing her wishes to her audience for Romney's house to be torched does meet the definition of arson.
She didn't use the word arson, nor did she express any desire for his home to be "torched". She didn't use either of those words. You're lying your ass off.
dmarks: yes, there was a call for violence, followed by lying about the total # of houses, followed by her bashing him for being Mormon. As so many on the Left happen to do...
More lies. None of that happened.
dmarks: You know who Maher is, and you aren't fooling anyone.
You aren't fooling anyone. I never said I didn't know who Bill Maher is. Also, everyone Bill Maher is critical of religion, no matter what religion it is.
dmarks: the link you provided, WD, shows examples of left-wing bigotry against Mormons. Did you even bother to read it? The final comment is this...
The comments do not reflect the views of the author of the article dumbass. Nasty comments can be found on any blog, be it rightwing or leftwing.
If I go to a Rightwing website and find some birther comments have I proved that all rightwingers are birthers? Stop being such a dumbass.
As a typical religious bigot, Maher is critical and lies about others' religious faiths... but defends his own.
I've never heard Bill Maher lie about other religious faiths. Sure, he's got a lot of opinions that I disagree with, but opinions aren't lies. But dmarks must be talking about a different Bill Maher, because the one I'm thinking of does not have a religious faith.
Also, I meant to say "Also, everyone KNOWS Bill Maher is critical of religion, no matter what religion it is". I'm surprised dmarks didn't flame me for the missing word.
I have no problem with people exaggerating for the sake of effect, wd. But this Behar chick's attempt at it would have made more a lot more sense if Mr. Romney had, say, 25-30 houses (a shitload, in other words) and not frigging THREE!......And I'm still not entire certain what the actual punchline was; the moronic exaggeration as to his housing ownership, or the vulgar singling out for ridicule the individual's religious faith. I mean, she's not exactly being Lenny Bruce or Mort Saul here.
Wait a minute, Will. When you say, "...not frigging THREE", it makes it sound owning three houses is no big deal. Just what percent of people do you think own three or more homes?
Let alone, three homes valued at nearly $20 million.
So you didn't like the joke Will. No surprise there. It doesn't make what she said not a joke, which is what dmarks is ridiculously claiming. According to him she doesn't know the difference between 3 and "millions". Does anyone beside dmarks believe that to be the case?
I don't think dmarks believes it. He's just saying it so he has another point on which to attack her.
Will: ...or the vulgar singling out for ridicule the individual's religious faith...
I don't know what you're talking about with this. He's big in the Mormon church and gives them a lot of money. If the firemen wouldn't put out the fire it stands to reason the Mormon church might do it.
WD said: "I've never heard Bill Maher lie about other religious faiths."
I guess you have never heard of his film "Religulous"
"Sure, he's got a lot of opinions that I disagree with, but opinions aren't lies."
An opinion that is not true is a lie. Where do you get your ideas?
"But dmarks must be talking about a different Bill Maher, because the one I'm thinking of does not have a religious faith."
The one on HBO happens to have the faith of "strong Atheism".
"Also, everyone KNOWS Bill Maher is critical of religion, no matter what religion it is".
Except for his own faith., And you are the one who does spelling flames, not me. Most recently you bashed me for a spelling mistake in a comment that I deleted because of its spelling mistake
Will said: "I have no problem with people exaggerating for the sake of effect, wd...."
The key to successful humor is to have a grain of truth in it. Behar's "joke" fails due to the disconnect between a mere three homes and the number that she stated (millions)
"And I'm still not entire certain what the actual punchline was; the moronic exaggeration as to his housing ownership, or the vulgar singling out for ridicule the individual's religious faith."
Well, left-wing religious bigots like to spell Mormon as moron, after all.
"I mean, she's not exactly being Lenny Bruce or Mort Saul here."
If she were, she'd be jockeying for a position on a major network late-night TV show, instead of her career failing as she gets kicked to the bottom of the cable TV dial.
dmarks: I guess you have never heard of his film "Religulous"
I have seen this film. Have you? I say no, because Bill Maher doesn't lie about religion in it, he tells the truth (and gives his opinion).
dmarks:An opinion that is not true is a lie. Where do you get your ideas?
I get my ideas about the meaning of words from the dictionary. You should try it. Making up your own definitions only makes you look stupid.
dmarks: The one on HBO happens to have the faith of "strong Atheism".
You dropped the word "religious". We were talking about religious faiths, and Bill Maher still doesn't have a religious faith. And that was a pretty pathetic bait and switch attempt.
dmarks: The key to successful humor is to have a grain of truth in it. Behar's "joke" fails due to the disconnect between a mere three homes and the number that she stated (millions)
This is why Joy Behar's joke succeeds... there is a grain of truth in it. Mitt Romney is a rich guy with millions of dollars who owns a lot of homes.
dmarks: left-wing religious bigots like to spell Mormon as moron, after all.
You are lying. They do not. One comment on a blog does not prove something about all Left-wingers. Also, the person who made the comment didn't identify as a Left winger. So that's two lies from dmarks.
dmarks: If she were, she'd be jockeying for a position on a major network late-night TV show, instead of her career failing as she gets kicked to the bottom of the cable TV dial.
Ah, the favorite dmarks insult. He really likes to call people with far more talent, fame and money than he will ever have "failures". But only if they're Democrats. Everyone sees though his BS, so it's a mystery why he keeps doing it. Also, Joy Behar co-hosts the popular and long running (15 years) program "The View"... which is on a major network (ABC). Only an idiot would not conclude that she is a huge success.
WD said: "You dropped the word "religious". We were talking about religious faiths, and Bill Maher still doesn't have a religious faith. And that was a pretty pathetic bait and switch attempt."
Bill Maher does have a religious faith: it is that of strong atheism. And the "truth" problem of "Religulous" is well documented. It is very misleading. He bashed others' religious faiths, but not his own. "Religulous" and his other bigotted attacks appeal to small-mindedness, bigotry, and hatred.
Sorry, WD. An opinion that is incorrect is still incorrect. And if the person stating something incorrect knows it, it is a flat-out lie.
"This is why Joy Behar's joke succeeds... there is a grain of truth in it."
Like a grain of sand on the beach, that is. Romney's 3 houses, well short of the minimum 1,500,000 required to be the "millions" in Behar's flat-out lie which you attempt to save by calling it a 'joke'
"You are lying. They do not. One comment on a blog does not prove something about all Left-wingers."
I am telling the truth. Stop lying about it. You know as well as I do that I also present a major example: Bill Maher bashing Mormons just because they do not share his own religion.
"Ah, the favorite dmarks insult. He really likes to call people with far more talent, fame and money than he will ever have "failures"."
She is not a failure...yet. That description accurately applies to Keith Olbermann; once on top, or close to the top, of the heap in his field. Then kicked to the bottom of the stack due his shenanigans, finally fired for many reasons including his abuse of his staff. He threw it all away.
Behar, while being kicked down the stairs, still is raking in millions as a successful corporate Democrat.
"But only if they're Democrats. Everyone sees though his BS"
Stop mainlining vodka, dude, and think for once. I say the same thing about Republicans and conservatives who destroy their careers.
"Everyone sees though his BS"
Name one person. I mean someone besides yourself (because you happen to who reads the facts and then lies about it.... and you have lost all credibility with statements such as calling Will a "conservative" even though he votes for left-wing Presidential candidates most of the time).
Also WD said: "Mitt Romney is a rich guy with millions of dollars who owns a lot of homes."
You are positively seething with jealousy, and also happened to tell a lie: 3 is not a "lot" ever.
Why not do something productive, WD, and earn money to own as many homes as you want, instead of whining piteously about those who get off their ass, actually do some work, and get some benefit from it? You sure are greedy and jealous.
One guy owning three homes worth 20 million dollars doesn't bother me one iota, especially since he's probably forking over a boat-load in property taxes.............As for making jokes about Mr. Romney, I would think that the flip-flopping element would be a lot more fruitful (not to mention, a lot less inflammatory) than the pissing upon his religious faith component. But, hey, that's just me.
If Romney owned that much property in my town, he'd be paying approximately $530,000 a year to the locals. That isn't exactly chicken-scratch.
Will said: "...a lot less inflammatory..."
I think inflammatory Mormon-bashing is what WD likes. After all, earlier he said he agreed with it 100%. And he strongly agrees with Maher's "Religulous" film which was wall-to-wall religious hatred and bigotry. You know, the kind of thing that, if it has a large audience, sends people out into the streets foaming like mad dogs to kill those who do not have their same faith. We need less of that, not more. We need more 'peace love and understanding' in the world, not films like "Religulous" which appeal to the base, the unintellectual, the bully.
We need more of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and less of Bill Maher.
Will said; "If Romney owned that much property in my town, he'd be paying approximately $530,000 a year to the locals. That isn't exactly chicken-scratch"
You know, most of the time when WD's heroes get caught fudging the numbers, as in the Maddow example about the Wisconsin budget, WD lies and lies, and insists that the fake numbers are real. (proving himself to be as good at acocunting as he is at international law: Lord save us from armchair accountants who fudge a huge deficit into a surplus!)
We know Behar wasn't joking, as the "joke" wasn't funny. That leaves her as the worst sort or journalist: one who makes up their own facts for fun.
Yet, oddly enough, in this example, he is insisting the fake numbers are a joke. Perhaps that can be something he can use in the future to "save" Maddow: call her lies "jokes".
Then he can bash us for not laughing when we point out that Maddow the massive Wisconsin deficit problem Scott Walker was handed a "surplus" isn't funny at all.
I guess that is his sense of humor: when a leftist journalist reports facts that are so off base that even his attempts to cover the lies aren't worth it, he can call the lies jokes.
Anyway, according to the facts as stated by "Current TV" television journalist Joy Behar, Romney probably has hundreds of homes in your community. It's likely, based on dividing the > 1,500,000 number of houses in the country she insists Romney has.
So forget your "he'd be paying approximately $530,000 a year to the locals" figure. With hundreds of homes in the area, he'd be ponying up $25 million a year to the government of your town.
At a minimum.
And who says the rich don't pay their fair share?
dmarks: Like a grain of sand on the beach... Romney's 3 houses, well short of the minimum 1,500,000... in Behar's flat-out lie which you attempt to save by calling it a 'joke'
I don't need to do shit to "save" it. It is what it is, and it was a joke. You didn't like it because it poked fun at the fact that your hero Mitt Romney is an out-of-touch rich a-hole.
dmarks: [Joy Behar] is not a failure... yet.
OK, then you admitted you lied. But the "yet" addendum is another lie. Joy Behar has been on "The View" for 15 years. She can't be comparred to Keith Olbermann at all. Joy Behar is clearly a winner.
dmarks: That description accurately applies to Keith Olbermann... He threw it all away.
Yet he still has millions of dollars he could live comfortably the rest of his life on. But Keith Olbermann has nothing to do with this conversation at all. You only bring him up because I caught you lying about Joy Behar being a "failure".
dmarks: Behar, while being kicked down the stairs, still is raking in millions as a successful corporate Democrat.
She is on a popular show on a major network. She isn't being "kicked down the stairs". You're lying. Also, she is a progressive Democrat, not a corporate Democrat. More lies.
dmarks: Stop mainlining vodka... I say the same thing about Republicans and conservatives who destroy their careers.
You lie about successful Republicans and call them losers? Baloney. You've never done that. I call you on your BS. You must be "mainlining vodka".
dmarks: Name one person.
I'm sure everyone here disagrees with at least some of the BS you write. Like calling Joy Behar a "loser" when she's clearly a winner. Just because nobody says anything about your lies does not mean they agree with them.
dmarks: You are positively seething with jealousy, and also happened to tell a lie: 3 is not a "lot" ever.
The "jealously" BS again. I only point out the facts. He's rich and got that way screwing over workers. That is why many people dislike him. Not because he's rich, but because of how he got rich.
Also, three house is a lot. Not as many as the (at least) seven owned by John McCain (so many he forgot the number), but it is still far more than the average American owns.
dmarks: Why not do something productive... You sure are greedy and jealous.
Mitt Romney should have done something productive to earn his money. Instead of destroying jobs he could have worked to make the American economy better. But he took the greedy way and screwed over American workers to make his millions.
dmarks: Bill Maher does have a religious faith: it is that of strong atheism... "Religulous" and his other bigotted attacks appeal to small-mindedness, bigotry, and hatred.
I thought the film was quite funny, and I'm a Christian. Also, the movie had nothing to do with small-mindedness, bigotry, or hatred... unless you're describing your reaction to his film. You sound extremely intolerant and bigotted toward non-believers.
dmarks: Sorry, WD. An opinion that is incorrect is still incorrect. And if the person... knows it, it is a flat-out lie.
Sorry dmarks, but not all questions have a right or wrong answer. Or not one we can know now, like the religious question... which means that you can't know that Bill Maher is wrong. You're pretty arrogant to claim you know Bill Maher is "lying".
dmarks: You know as well as I do that I also present a major example: Bill Maher bashing Mormons just because they do not share his own religion.
You're lying your ass off, as usual. We were talking about a comment on a blog which you pretended represented the views of all Liberals. And, as a non-believer, Bill Maher is in the minority. His views also do not represent those of a majority of Liberals.
dmarks: ...he strongly agrees with Maher's "Religulous" film which was wall-to-wall religious hatred and bigotry.
I don't "strongly agree" with it at all. It showcases Maher's disbelief in religion, which, as a Christian, I do not share. Also, you didn't say if you actually watched the movie. I think you did not, or you wouldn't have inaccurately described it as "wall-to-wall religious hatred and bigotry". It wasn't that at all.
dmarks: [Religulous] sends people out into the streets foaming like mad dogs to kill those who do not have their same faith.
It does not. I watched it and it did not have that effect on me at all. You're lying and showing your hatred and intolerance toward those who don't agree with your decision to follow a religion.
dmarks: ...films like "Religulous" which appeal to the base, the unintellectual, the bully.
You're lying. There is no "base" for Religulous to appeal to. Non-believers are a minority and neither political party caters to them.
wd, what if Ms. Behar had said a Muslim joke about a politician? Would that have been funny, too? And I'm not even voting for Romney!
"And I'm not even voting for Romney!"
And the above is piece of evidence #8,916 that Will is no kind of conservative. Time to give your hollow claim that he is a rest, WD.
Will: I would suspect that WD's agreement will depend on how much Bill Maher likes to make ignorant and bigoted lies about Muslims too. And he has. But probably not as much as he slanders and bashes Mormons.
WD said: "You're lying. There is no "base" for Religulous to appeal to. Non-believers are a minority and neither political party caters to them."
I never mentioned non-believers. As Maher, is, of course, a believer in his own religious faith. His faith is a minority faith, for sure, but that does not give him an excuse to lie and slander and incite religious hatred.
Also, WD said: "[Religilous] does not. I watched it and it did not have that effect on me at all."
Well, something has dumbed you down and increased your bigotry. How else would you say that you agreed "100%" with Behar's Mormon-bashing?
Or maybe you were an ignorant religious bigot to begin with, and the movie fit perfectly with your arrogance and hatred.
Finally, WD said: "You're lying and showing your hatred and intolerance toward those who don't agree with your decision to follow a religion."
Not at all. I respect the decision of Maher and others like him to follow their religion. What I object to is their arrogance in their faith's superiority that leads them to lie about and mock and bash those who do not share their own religion.
In this aspect, Maher is as bad as any arrogant Ayatollah, Jerry Falwell, or other such religious bigot. Just an insecure bully, like them, who gets his jollies out of mocking and insulting and lying about others.
Will: wd, what if Ms. Behar had said a Muslim joke about a politician? Would that have been funny, too?
Huh? What does this question have to do with what Joy Behar said? Her comment was in regards to Mitt Romney's desire to cut public sector jobs including firefighters. I don't know why you bring up Muslims.
dmarks: And the above is piece of evidence #8,916 that Will is no kind of conservative. Time to give your hollow claim that he is a rest, WD.
It isn't. You're counting the same "evidence" multiple times. The amount of evidence that proves Will is a Conservative far outweighs the evidence that he isn't. He argues against the minimum wage, believes CEOs aren't overpaid (or that it isn't a big deal), favors job-killing free trade agreements, is opposed to "overtaxing" the wealthy (bazillions of posts on this topic alone), is in complete denial regarding how our economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy, is a defender of a war criminal president (bazillions more posts), criticizes mostly Liberal pundits, likes health savings accounts, constantly quotes Conservative and Libertarian writers, argues against unemployment insurance... and on and on.
Will being a Conservative is not a "hollow claim". The evidence is overwhelming.
dmarks: I never mentioned non-believers. As Maher, is, of course, a believer in his own religious faith.
You did. Atheists are non-believers. Bill Maher has no "religious faith".
dmarks: Well, something has dumbed you down and increased your bigotry. How else would you say that you agreed "100%" with Behar's Mormon-bashing?
She didn't Mormon-bash. I can't agree with something she never said.
WD said: "...favors job-killing free trade agreements..."
Actually, you are counting views Will never expressed as evidence that he is conservative.
Will, do you favor job-killing free trade agreements?
"You did. Atheists are non-believers"
Maher is the type of atheist who asserts a faith. He's a believer, alright. You happen to agree with his faith, so you share his arrogance and condescension and make false claims about his lack of one.
dmarks: you are counting views Will never expressed as evidence that he is conservative.
You think Will is opposed to free trade? Ask him -- I predict he'll disagree with you.
dmarks: You happen to agree with his faith, so you share his arrogance and condescension and make false claims about his lack of one.
I disagree with it. I'm a Christian. Stop lying. Also, I can't agree with a faith someone does not have. It's quite impossible. I just respect his decision to not believe. Unlike dmarks who bashes him for it.
I don't know how official any of these labels are, wd, but to counter your cherry-picking with some of my own, the following. I believe that revenues should be a part of any overall deficit reduction package (that fact alone would get me kicked out of the present-day Republican party and you know it). I believe in a progressive taxation system and a return to the Clinton top tax rates. I was in favor of extending the unemployment benefits (the only caveat being additional auditing). I'm in favor of universal health insurance (health savings accounts being but ONE component to the overall plan that I submitted). I am pro-choice (though, no, not opposed to certain restrictions in the 3rd trimester). I am in favor of cutting military spending and vociferously opposed Mr. Obama's surge in Afghanistan. I am pro gay rights. I came out in favor of a negative income tax (and caught the disapproval of Rusty)............And you're being willfully dishonest in most of those characterizations. a) If Bush is a war criminal then so, too, are FDR, LBJ (60,000 dead Americans soldiers, wd), and Obama (say what you want about Chomsky, at least the fellow's intellectually honest). b) Free trade benefits just as many persons as it hurts and it almost caused the civil war to be fought 30 years earlier than it was. The construct isn't even as remotely clear cuts as you've described it and a lot of liberals (from FDR to Al Gore) have supported freer trade over the years as well. c) I've never made a blanket statement about CEO salaries. In fact, I believe that I said that, just like in any other position, some of them are overpaid and some of them are underpaid (though, yes, these are voluntary associations between private parties and it really isn't any of my business anyway). d) As I stated before, I was IN FAVOR (you liar) of extending the unemployment benefits. Yes, I did a post in which I quoted liberal economists saying one thing when they weren't in the political arena and contrasted that with what they said when they were. Yes, I did do that. But that was more to embarrass these pompous asses than it was to take a position. e) Yes, I think that the minimum wage hurts the economy and especially so young teenage minorities. I will in fact give you that one (that and the fact that I'd much rather listen to Thomas Sowell than the lunatic Paul Krugman).
WD said: "Huh? What does this question have to do with what Joy Behar said?"
It has a LOT to do with what Behar said. Will merely replaced "Mormon" (a religion you are ignorant and bigotted about) with "Muslim" (a religion you are more tolerant about). His substitution ended up proving a lot about your hypocrisy.
"Her comment was in regards to Mitt Romney's desire to cut public sector jobs including firefighters. I don't know why you bring up Muslims."
Here statement included Mormon-bashing as well, as you know it.
"The amount of evidence that proves Will is a Conservative far outweighs the evidence that he isn't."
There's simply no evidence that Will is a conservative. The proponderance of his views are either in the center, or to the left of it. Will listed many of his views in the later comment, in which he also pointed out that you lied about at least one of his left-of-center views, in order to paint him as a conservative.
"is a defender of a war criminal president"
He has yet to defend a war criminal. We are talking reality here, not your jokes about Bush.
WD lied: "You did. Atheists are non-believers. Bill Maher has no "religious faith".
He is of the type of atheist who has a religious faith. Sorry, WD, repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true.
"She didn't Mormon-bash. I can't agree with something she never said."
I quoted her Mormon-bashing. You aren't fooling anyone by claiming she didn't do it.
Anyway, I accept Bill Maher's religious faith, and support his right to believe. I do not support his arrogant condescension toward those who do not share his faith. I condemn him for being a religious bigot who bashes and lies just to be mean.
And I was indeed wrong about something: I did not know you were a Christian, WD. But it would seem, from your extreme insistence in the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites, that the only verse in your Bible is "Render unto Caesar".
dmarks: Will merely replaced "Mormon" (a religion you are ignorant and bigotted about) with "Muslim".... His substitution ended up proving a lot about your hypocrisy.
It proved nothing about my "hypocrisy" since the substitution makes no sense. Romney isn't a Muslim. Also, I'm not ignorant or bigotted about Mormons. Harry Reid is a Mormon and I support/would vote for him.
dmarks: Her statement included Mormon-bashing as well, as you know it.
I don't know it because I can't "know" something that is false. She said nothing bad about Mormons, she only brought up that he is a Mormon. Was it a "bash" when I mentioned that Harry Reid is a Mormon?
dmarks: There's simply no evidence that Will is a conservative. The preponderance of his views... [Also] you lied about at least one of his left-of-center views.
The preponderance of his views are Conservative. I told you what his Conservative views are (which I got from reading his blog). I don't know how you can keep denying the obvious. Also, I did not lie about one of Will's views. Will said he opposed unemployment insurance because "government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work". This is in a post where Will claimed to be quoting 3 Liberals, even though 2 of the three people he referenced aren't Liberal.
dmarks: He has yet to defend a war criminal. We are talking reality here, not your jokes about Bush.
I refer to reality here, not your jokes about bush not being a war criminal and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars being "already on".
dmarks: He is of the type of atheist who has a religious faith. Sorry, WD, repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true.
So, you're contending that he secretly worships a supreme being? What religion do you think he is secretly a member of? Is this like Barack Obama and his secretly being a Muslim?
dmarks: I quoted her Mormon-bashing. You aren't fooling anyone by claiming she didn't do it.
You quoted a sentence in which she said the word "Mormon". She didn't say anything bad about Mormons. You aren't fooling anyone by lying and saying she did.
dmarks: Anyway, I accept Bill Maher's religious faith, and support his right to believe.
In other words, you "support" his right to be a believer, but continue to bash him for being a non-believer (i.e. you just admitted your bigotry and intolerence toward anyone who chooses not to believe).
dmarks: from your extreme insistence in the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites, that the only verse in your Bible is "Render unto Caesar".
I believe in that one, but it certainly isn't the ONLY verse in my Bible. That's a ridiculous claim. Also, I strongly oppose this notion of "the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites". I belive the people should have the power, which is why I support democracy and not plutocracy (unlike you).
"Also, I strongly oppose this notion of "the primacy and supremacy of the ruling elites".
That is all you ever do. For one good example, look at the one about buying a Hyundai. A decision that should be left to the people. You want the ruling elites to make this choice, not us.
Anyway, I call your bluff on something else: name the non-liberals that Will was quoting.
I bet you can't. Dollars to donuts, even.
WD said: "In other words, you "support" his right to be a believer, but continue to bash him for being a [beleiver in his own faith]"
I have never ever once bashed Maher for his religious faith. He does the bashing for that, I do not.
"i.e. you just admitted your bigotry and intolerence toward anyone who chooses not to believe)."
We haven't even been discussing anyone who chooses not to believe. But for the record, I support agnostics (the actual non-believers) also.
Maher himself is indeed a religious man, as he asserts a religious belief: a faith that there is "no God". Viewed objectively, such faith assertions are always religious. The ones who lack belief, lack faith, are the ones who say "I don't know".
dmarks: That is all you ever do. ...look at the one about buying a Hyundai. A decision that should be left to the people. You want the ruling elites to make this choice, not us.
I've never done it. Not even once. As for trade, I believe that should be decided by the people... by them voting for the elected representative that they agree with. I believe the people should decide, not the plutocrats (unlike you).
dmarks: Anyway, I call your bluff on something else: name the non-liberals that Will was quoting. I bet you can't.
Of course I can. In fact, I already did... just follow the link I provided earlier and read my comment. The non-Liberals he quoted are Lawrence Summers and Alan Krueger. Of course you're going to lie and say they are Liberals (like you lie about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama being Liberals... and you'll probably say something nonsensical about "measuring from the center"), but they are not. They're all Conservative to Moderate Democrats.
dmarks: I have never ever once bashed Maher for his religious faith. He does the bashing for that, I do not.
I never claimed that you did because he doesn't have one. You're bashing him for being a non-believer.
dmarks: We haven't even been discussing anyone who chooses not to believe. But for the record, I support agnostics (the actual non-believers) also.
Of course we are. The person who choses not to believe is Bill Maher.
dmarks: Maher himself is indeed a religious man, as he asserts a religious belief: a faith that there is "no God". Viewed objectively, such faith assertions are always religious. The ones who lack belief, lack faith, are the ones who say "I don't know".
Actually, he describes himself as an "apatheist", which is "also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism. [It] is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist".
So your description of "strong athiest" is not accurate. And FYI, the purpose of "Religulous" is not to disprove the existence of God, but to "spoof religious extremism across the world".
Also, we were discussing you lying about Joy Behar "bashing" Mormons. I challenged you to tell me what the bad thing she said about Mormons was. Obviously you couldn't do it, which is why you changed the subject to Bill Maher.
"I've never done it. Not even once. As for trade, I believe that should be decided by the people... by them voting for the elected representative that they agree with."
That's really crazy. In the case of the Hyundai, why not let the people directly choose? A vote is not necessary at all.
"And FYI, the purpose of "Religulous" is not to disprove the existence of God, but to "spoof religious extremism across the world"."
And how better to do this than to present, by example of its very makers, religious bigotry, extremism, and hatred?
"Also, we were discussing you lying about Joy Behar bashing Mormons."
I never did this. I presented what she actually said: her own silly rant that started by calling for violence against Romney and/or his family, continued lying about how how many homes he has, and ending with the "Mormon fire patrol" smear.
And it is a smear. You are the one who tried to change the subject, mentioning your personal belief that Obama is a secret Muslim.
dmarks: That's really crazy. In the case of the Hyundai, why not let the people directly choose? A vote is not necessary at all.
It is really rational to not allow people to directly choose. The Founders knew trade decisions should be made by countries and not individuals, which is why they said tariffs should be collected (and wrote that into the Constitution). Your way assures that many American jobs are destroyed and puts all the decisions on this issue into the hands of the plutocrats. That's really super crazy.
dmarks: And how better to do this than to present, by example of its very makers, religious bigotry, extremism, and hatred?
I watched the movie. I strongly disagree with your chacterization of the movie. Read the reviews of the movie at Wikipedia... nobody describes the movie in this manner.
dmarks lied: ...calling for violence against Romney and/or his family, continued lying about how how many homes he has, and ending with the "Mormon fire patrol" smear.
She never called for violence. She did not lie about how many homes Romney has, she made a joke. And referring to a "Mormon fire patrol" isn't a smear.
dmarks lied: ...mentioning your personal belief that Obama is a secret Muslim.
President Obama is a Christian. I hold no such "personal belief". And you changed the subject again. I asked you what deity Bill Maher worships. You know he worships none so you dodged the question.
You're a liar, wd. That post had only the quotations of Democratic individuals before they entered politics. And I only posted it to show how certain individuals think when they have the intellectual freedom to say things and of how these same beliefs change when they enter into politics.......Back when the debate was roaring about extending unemployment benefits, I came out strongly in favor of doing so. Yes, I said that maybe we needed to do more audits to make sure that people truly ARE looking but when it came to the bottom line, I strongly came out in favor them. What a frigging little liar you are.
WD said: "It is really rational to not allow people to directly choose."
That is the most rational choice of all.
"The Founders knew trade decisions should be made by countries and not individuals"
No, they did not. You are making thigns up
"which is why they said tariffs should be collected (and wrote that into the Constitution)."
They ALLOW for tariffs. They don't say that Congress should tariff much at all, or even anything.
"Your way assures that many American jobs are destroyed"
More like 0 jobs. Actually, my example ensures that American jobs are GAINED. Hyundai happens to be employing a larger and larger number of American workers to build cars in the US. A very large number of them, in fact.
"and puts all the decisions on this issue into the hands of the plutocrats."
The plutocrats are irrelevant in this. As in my example, I was talking about the informed choice of the average American to choose to by a Hyundai. In "Occupy" terms, that is a choice of the 99%, not 1%.
"I watched the movie. I strongly disagree with your chacterization of the movie. Read the reviews of the movie at Wikipedia... nobody describes the movie in this manner."
The first thing I found when researching this movie were plenty of negative reviews and lists of the facts it got wrong.
"marks lied"
Actually, I told the truth. Behar's call for violence, lie about the # of homes, and Mormon bashing are all a matter of public record.
"She never called for violence."
She did. I quoted her.
"She did not lie about how many homes Romney has, she made a joke."
Calling it a 'joke' does not excuse a mega whopper. Honestly, the is the first time I have ever seen anyone look at a colossal lie and try to excuse it by saying it was a joke.
The facts? Romney has 3 houses. Behar claimed he has some indeterminate number that starts, at a minimum, of one-and-one-half million homes.
What Behar said was not true. Thus, a lie.
"And referring to a "Mormon fire patrol" isn't a smear."
Only a religious bigot would make your claim.
"dmarks [told the truth].mentioning your personal belief that Obama is a secret Muslim.
P"resident Obama is a Christian."
Then why did you say he was a Muslim?
"I asked you what deity Bill Maher worships. You know he worships none so you dodged the question."
No, I didn't. Some strong religious faiths, such as Maher's, do not include a deity. Your question was, to put it bluntly, ignorant and stupid.
Asking what deity a religious Atheist believes in is as boneheaded as asking a Jew what Catholic saints he reveres, or a Shintoist what part of Islamic law she follows.
Because, as everyone knows, the faith of the strong Atheist is in "no deity".
Will: You're a liar, wd. That post had only the quotations of Democratic individuals before they entered politics. And I only posted it to show [blah, blah, blah]...
Your post contained none of this explaination. I assumed (as anyone would) that you posted the comments because you agreed with them.
Me making the wrong assumption because you failed to explain why you were posting those quotes (if you're being honest about why you posted the quotes) does not make me a liar. And you know it. Therefore you're the one who is lying.
dmarks: No, they did not. You are making things up.
You're making things up. I already quoted you the portion of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to assess tariffs. You can wish all you want that it isn't in there, but that does not change the fact that it is.
dmarks: They ALLOW for tariffs. They don't say that Congress should tariff much at all, or even anything.
So you think it's in there for absolutely no reason? BTW, it doesn't say the federal government can assess tariffs but that it shouldn't. That's why it's in there, because the Founders believed tariffs SHOULD be assessed. Proof of that is the fact that they did.
dmarks: More like 0 jobs. Actually, my example ensures that American jobs are GAINED.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost due to NAFTA. Look it up. Your ignorance doesn't change the facts.
dmarks lied: [Joy Behar called for violence.] I quoted her.
You're thinking of what YOU wrote. You're the one who brought up violence and arson. Joy Behar mentioned neither. Reread the quote and you'll find none of that is in there.
dmarks: Calling it a 'joke' does not excuse a mega whopper. Honestly, the is the first time I have ever seen anyone look at a colossal lie and try to excuse it by saying it was a joke.
dmarks is telling a mega whopper, which is that what Joy Behar said wasn't a joke. You pretending to not know it was a joke does not excuse your ridiculous lie. dmarks is only making himself look dumber and dumber the longer he continues to say Joy Behar "lied" about Romney having millions of homes.
This has got to be the dumbest claim I've ever encountered... that an obvious joke is a "lie".
dmarks: Then why did you say he was a Muslim?
I didn't. I said (in reference to your claim that Bill Maher has a "religous faith", "Is this like Barack Obama and his secretly being a Muslim?" I was referring to the LIE that he is a secret Muslim. Do you ALWAYS take people 100 percent literally?
I'm going to guess no. I think you only do it if it gives you an opportunity to attack someone you don't like. I find this habit of yours to be extremely dishonest.
dmarks: Because, as everyone knows, the faith of the strong Atheist is in "no deity".
You haven't proven that Bill Maher is a "strong atheist". In fact, I provided evidence to the contrary.
The definition of atheism says that it, "is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist...".
"Absense of belief"... just like I said.
Also, "the term atheism originated from the Greek atheos, meaning 'without god', used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society".
You said Bill Maher has a "religious faith", therefore I asked you what deity he worships. This is when you realized you had been tripped up by your own BS and frantically came up with some nonsense about Jews revering Catholic saints. dmarks should stop digging.
WD said: "You're making things up. I already quoted you the portion of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to assess tariffs"
So? But it never says that Congress must impose tariffs. The problem here is that you think that just because the Constitution gives the rulers permission to do something, then they must do it. That's illogical and completely ignorant of civics.
The Constitution also gives Congress permission to declare war. Using your logic, this means that the Congress must declare war all the time against everyone.
But... in reality.... tariffs, like war, are very risky and destructive. It is only prudent to impose either of these rarely, if at all.
"I didn't. I said (in reference to your claim that Bill Maher has a religous faith,"
As we are discussion the religion Maher actually has, there are no quotes necessary around "religious faith"
"Do you ALWAYS take people 100 percent literally?"
Well, excuse me for assuming that people are attempting to tell the truth in these things, instead of lying for the hell of it.
"You said Bill Maher has a religious faith, therefore I asked you what deity he worships. This is when you realized you had been tripped up by your own BS"
Not at all. Because those in the strong Atheist faith don't merely lack belief, they assert a religious belief concerning deity.
"...frantically came up with some nonsense about Jews revering Catholic saints. dmarks should stop digging."
No, that was not 'digging'. I was merely proving how close-minded you were about the nature of religion. And I did so quite handily.
"If I'm being honest" Fuck you you miserable little bitch. I had made it clear on numerous other occasions of my support for the extension of those benefits (you remember all of my conservative positions by heart but conveniently forget the other ones). On one thread I even got Rusty mad at me.......And one of those Democratic academics that I quoted was fucking Paul Krugman. You gonna tell me that he's not a liberal?
dmarks: So? But it never says that Congress must impose tariffs.
So? Obviously they put it in there because they believed the federal government SHOULD impose tariffs. Proof of that is the fact that they did.
dmarks: The problem here is that you think that just because the Constitution gives the rulers permission to do something, then they must do it. That's illogical and completely ignorant of civics.
You're making things up. I never used the word "must". We should use them to protect our jobs. You want to destroy jobs and I think we should try to save them. Most Americans agree with my point of view and disagree with dmarks' wealthy worshipping point of view.
dmarks: The Constitution also gives Congress permission to declare war. Using your logic, this means that the Congress must declare war all the time against everyone.
That isn't my logic, although I do believe only Congress (and not the president) should be able to go to war.
dmarks lied: But, in reality, tariffs, like war, are very risky and destructive.
Bullshit. You don't believe that at all. I say this because you were VERY eager to wage unnecessary, risky and destructive wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. And tariffs have been in place for most of our history (and have paid most of the cost of running the federal government), thus you claiming tariffs are "risky and destructive" is laughable.
dmarks: As we are discussing the religion Maher actually has...
I'm not discussing that. Because it would be impossible to discuss something Bill Maher doesn't have.
dmarks: Well, excuse me for assuming that people are attempting to tell the truth in these things, instead of lying for the hell of it.
What a load of crap. People misspeak, use sarcasm, make jokes... and dmarks LIES and pretends they meant what they said literally... so he can bash them for it. But it only makes dmarks look very dumb... because everybody else recgonizes that people misspeak, use sarcasm, and make jokes.
dmarks: Not at all. Because those in the strong Atheist faith don't merely lack belief, they assert a religious belief concerning [the existence of a] deity.
What does religion have to do with it? What church does Bill Maher attend?
dmarks: No, that was not 'digging'. I was merely proving how close-minded you were about the nature of religion. And I did so quite handily.
Not at all. And you still haven't explained to me how what Joy Behar said about Mormons was bad. That they might have their own fire department? Do you think fire departments are bad?
Because you're a dishonest idiot who constantly avoids inconvenient facts such as Krugman saying this, Chomsky saying that Obama is in many ways worse than Bush, and FDR carpet-bombing and turning to bacon hundreds of thousands of babies, women, and the elderly. That's why.
It must be pointed out that US manufacturing jobs were declining fast before NAFTA. After it was passed, the decline actually slowed down. NAFTA put the breaks on job decline.
I welcome WD's decision to refuse to buy things made in Mexico, out of his ignorance and fear of Mexicans. But I resent his arrogance in wanting to force his decision on others, and his support for arrogant meddling in these personal decisions by ignorant and power-hungry individuals whol are elected.
I side with the many many millions of workers who would be fired if WD had his way and exports from the US were cut off due to trade wars. I also stand with Americans who have the right to make their own informed trade decisions, no thanks to people like WD and Pat Buchanan.
The right of Congress to pass tariffs is a worthless historic relic like the idea that slaves were worth a fraction of a person. Both bad ideas left in the past.
By the way, last time I checked Romney has no more homes than Obama. Three. Behar's 'joke' fails in all ways. The idea that Romney is out of touch is a hardcore partisan idea anyway: baed on partisan bias and not fact, just like similar claims about Obama.
The joke in the parent post works because the photo has Behar looking something like a chicken. The three=millions joke fails completely because there is no resemblance between the numbers at all. What sort of moron would laugh at that?
What about you ignoring bush turning hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and babies to bacon? And that was in a totally unnecessary war of choice. All you can say is that he was a bad president and Iraq might have been a bad idea. Unbelievable.
And what "joke" is dmarks referring to? Obviously Will stole that picture from some other website... another website where the writer lied about having "scientific proof" that Joy Behar is a chicken. Of course (because dmarks does not like Joy Behar) he says this "joke" is a good one.
You have a good point: the Behar physical appearance jab is kind of lame. But it is a lot more reality-based than Behar's beyond-over-the-top exaggeration.
WD: also the civilian death toll due to collateral damage from US operations in Iraq was a fraction of 100,000. Not 'hundreds of thousands'.
Oh. Must be one of those 'crazy high numers far removed from reality' jokes you find so funny.
dmarks: But it is a lot more reality-based than Behar's beyond-over-the-top exaggeration.
Wrong. Joy Behar is no kind of bird, she is a human. This "joke" isn't at all "reality based".
The houses joke is very much reality based. Mitt Romney has millions of dollars. What she did was replace the word "dollars" with "houses". That is why it is funny.
dmarks: Oh. Must be one of those 'crazy high numers far removed from reality' jokes you find so funny.
Oh. dmarks must be making a "joke". Because he knows I'm referring to the Lancet survey that puts the number of Iraqi dead at 1.4 million. I would NEVER joke about how many innocents the mass murderer bush is responsible for.
dmarks: The right of Congress to pass tariffs is a worthless historic relic like the idea that slaves were worth a fraction of a person. Both bad ideas left in the past.
Tariffs are not a "historic relic". The 3/4ths a person was voided via a Constitutional amendment... while the power to assess tariffs was NOT. The fact is we still assess tariffs. The only problem is that they are far to low.
WD asked: "What does religion have to do with it? What church does Bill Maher attend?"
Seems WD was spending too much time on the playground in 3rd grade flicking boogera and getting pantsed, that he missed his social studies class.
If he had gone, he might have learned that there are billions of religious people who adhere to the diverse faiths of the world... and only a minority of them go to church.
"Because he knows I'm referring to the Lancet survey that puts the number of Iraqi dead at 1.4 million. I would NEVER joke about how many innocents the mass murderer bush is responsible for."
Since there is no evidence of Bush doing any "mass murder', this looks again like another "Bush is a war criminal" joke.
The Lancet "Study" itself is not serious, really. It is the only Iraq war casualty created by someone whose shoddy ethics and accuracy in creating such studies has caused him to be barred from making more.
"The fact is we still assess tariffs. The only problem is that they are far to low."
Low tariffs = less fascism (a less powerful ruling State)
High tariffs = more fascism. The ruling elites robbing the 99% even more.
I go with the low tariffs. We don't need them. Contrary to your belief, American workers aren't inferior slackers that can't compete on the world stage without ridiculous fascistic laws to back them up.
The Founding Fathers weren't fascists dmarks. I suggest you look this word up... apparently dmarks thinks "fascism" means "anything dmarks disagrees with". He may as well said "low tariffs = more stuff I like" and "high tariffs = more stuff I don't like"... and then said the founders were "poopy pants".
And I don't think American workers are "inferior slackers", I think they live somewhere where the cost of living is significantly higher than in these low wage countries you want all our jobs outsourced to (so the plutocrats can get even richer).
And I've never flicked boggera at anyone. I did pants you though, when I metaphorically pulled down your pants and exposed the yellow and brown stains on your undies... stains representing the lies you've been telling about Bill Maher's "religion".
Also, bush is responsible for mass murder no matter what figures you accept... both the incorrect figures you say are right and the more correct ones put forward by the Lancet... both are very high. And you may find war crimes funny, but no one else does.
War crimes aren't funny, but we aren't discussing any. As there is no evidence of any from Bush. But what is funny is your Bush Derangement Syndrome and your inability to say anything true about the man.
Actually bush has been found guilty of war crimes, albeit in Malaysia and the tribunal does not carry any legal authority.
I read about that. It was sort of a model UN sort of thing. A fake proceeding.
dmarks: War crimes aren't funny, but we aren't discussing any. As there is no evidence of any from Bush.
We *ARE* discussing bush's war crimes... try to keep up. According to the article that Jerry linked to, "the head of the U.N.'s human rights arm is demanding that the torture investigation go to the very top [bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc]...
I thought dmarks said the UN "laughed" and dismissed the very suggestion that the bush administration is guilty of war crimes?? Now, this statement was from 2009, so it appears as though the investigation was squashed by the Obama Administration, just like they pressured Spain not to go ahead with their trial.
dmarks' claims that because no investigations or trials have been conducted -- that proves bush's innocence... it's all complete BS. People did want to investigate and hold trials... but were heavily leaned on by the Obama administration not to.
WD said "We *ARE* discussing bush's war crimes..."
None exist, so there are none to discuss. But we can laugh at your conjuring the idea of them out of whole cloth.
"According to the article that Jerry linked to..."
The article Jerry linked to was a fake proceeding. A Kangaroo court, hosted in a rabidly anti-semitic nation that has a reputation of supporting terrorists. No legitimate nation wanted to be associated with. Like the extremist Islamic "court" you wanted Bin Laden to be turned over to, this "court" has no more standing than high school Model UN.
Amazing that you confuse this with the real UN.
"I thought dmarks said the UN "laughed" and dismissed the very suggestion that the bush administration is guilty of war crimes??"
This is very true.
"Now, this statement was from 2009, so it appears as though the investigation was squashed by the Obama Administration"
More nutty conspiracy claims about Obama.
"just like they pressured Spain not to go ahead with their trial."
Trials typically don't happen because the prosecution has no case at all, not because of nutty conspiracy theories.
"dmarks' claims that because no investigations or trials have been conducted -- that proves bush's innocence..."
That is also true. It shows I am also informed about the "innocent until proven guilty" principle
"it's all complete BS."
That is no more than your bizarre claim that the lack of any convictions proves Bush's guilt.
"People did want to investigate and hold trials... but were heavily leaned on by the Obama administration not to."
It's pretty bad when you slander Bush, but it makes even less sense when you slander Obama too.
And back to the subject: Behar.
An earlier actual quote showed Behar wishing for a violent crime (arson) to be perpetrated against Romney and/or his family, her lying about the number of houses he had, and her making a mild but definite slam against his Mormon faith.
In defending the lie (the middle part of Behar's rant), you have claimed the following as part of defending the idea that it is a "joke"
1) She was talking about how out of touch Romney is.
2) She was referring to how he had too many houses.
3) She was referring not to how she had too many houses, but how he had millions of dollars.
------------
Thanks for proving that it wasn't a joke by you flopping about like a fish stranded on the dock making wild, shifting, and inconsistent guesses as to what the "joke" actually was.
Post a Comment