Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts

[Sarah G]

This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..

SNIP:
posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
printer-friendly
Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for America’s history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have “hated” their “guts.”
As you’d come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as “teabaggers” – which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.
Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were “nothing like them.” No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How?

Here comes Maher:video at site.

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.

Video (via Mediaite):

SEE VIDEO( more from the idiot Maher) and read it all with comments.
Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would?ve hated your guts Hot Air

Oh, you just reminded me his new season starts this month.

Yayyy.

He's right about the founding fathers.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. It's a ridiculous correlation. #1, in the 18th century the issue was taxation without representation. The tea people had representation, they just lost an election and threw a hissy fit. #2, their taxes haven't gone up.

So yes, they chose a patriotic name to create the facade that they were doing something patriotic. In reality, they're just pissing and stomping because they lost an election.

I've always thought they were a little more Whiskey Rebellion than Boston Tea Party.

 

[California Girl]

This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..

SNIP:
posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
printer-friendly
Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for America’s history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have “hated” their “guts.”
As you’d come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as “teabaggers” – which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.
Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were “nothing like them.” No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How?

Here comes Maher:video at site.

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.

Video (via Mediaite):

SEE VIDEO( more from the idiot Maher) and read it all with comments.
Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would?ve hated your guts Hot Air

Oh, you just reminded me his new season starts this month.

Yayyy.

He's right about the founding fathers.

Oh, cool. When, exactly, did Maher interview the Founding Fathers.... and it's interesting to know that they all agree... because they sure as hell didn't when they were alive.

And.... for the record, I would be saying the same thing if Glen Beck claimed that the Founders (as a group) would support the TEA Parties.

It is no wonder that the country is such a fucking mess. Generally, we have no concept of 'critical thinking'.

 

[Sherry]

Oh, give me a break. Don't be so disingenuous. You know, I know and everybody knows why they chose the tea party moniker. The fact that it makes a little anagram that fits their political set up is nice and fluffy and all that, but please, don't try and think we're all idiots....

The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?

No. It's a ridiculous correlation. #1, in the 18th century the issue was taxation without representation. The tea people had representation, they just lost an election and threw a hissy fit. #2, their taxes haven't gone up.

So yes, they chose a patriotic name to create the facade that they were doing something patriotic. In reality, they're just pissing and stomping because they lost an election.

Seriously, both sides could easily twist it either way. Is it so difficult to agree that there is a comparison to the masses demonstrating against their perceived wrongs from the government??

 

[California Girl]

Oh, give me a break. Don't be so disingenuous. You know, I know and everybody knows why they chose the tea party moniker. The fact that it makes a little anagram that fits their political set up is nice and fluffy and all that, but please, don't try and think we're all idiots....

The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?

No. It's a ridiculous correlation. #1, in the 18th century the issue was taxation without representation. The tea people had representation, they just lost an election and threw a hissy fit. #2, their taxes haven't gone up.

So yes, they chose a patriotic name to create the facade that they were doing something patriotic. In reality, they're just pissing and stomping because they lost an election.

Again, for the record (and this is fact), the TEA Parties started under Bush, not Obama. So, while the majority may have joined since, the origins pre-date the black guy in the White House. And.... before you talk about taxes not going up.... I would refer you to the list of taxes in the new Health Care bill. Then tell me that taxes ain't going up. And try to keep a straight face when you say it.

 

[Sarah G]

This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..

SNIP:
posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
printer-friendly
Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for America’s history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have “hated” their “guts.”
As you’d come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as “teabaggers” – which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.
Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were “nothing like them.” No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How?

Here comes Maher:video at site.

Video (via Mediaite):

SEE VIDEO( more from the idiot Maher) and read it all with comments.
Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would?ve hated your guts Hot Air

Oh, you just reminded me his new season starts this month.

Yayyy.

He's right about the founding fathers.

Oh, cool. When, exactly, did Maher interview the Founding Fathers.... and it's interesting to know that they all agree... because they sure as hell didn't when they were alive.

And.... for the record, I would be saying the same thing if Glen Beck claimed that the Founders (as a group) would support the TEA Parties.

It is no wonder that the country is such a fucking mess. Generally, we have no concept of 'critical thinking'.

You think we have to interview them to understand their pov?

There's a really good book called John Adams by David McCullough. Historical and factual. There's also an HBO miniseries they show every July 4th.

Learn something.

 

[California Girl]

Oh, you just reminded me his new season starts this month.

Yayyy.

He's right about the founding fathers.

Oh, cool. When, exactly, did Maher interview the Founding Fathers.... and it's interesting to know that they all agree... because they sure as hell didn't when they were alive.

And.... for the record, I would be saying the same thing if Glen Beck claimed that the Founders (as a group) would support the TEA Parties.

It is no wonder that the country is such a fucking mess. Generally, we have no concept of 'critical thinking'.

You think we have to interview them to understand their pov?

There's a really good book called John Adams by David McCullough. Historical and factual. There's also an HBO miniseries they show every July 4th.

Learn something.

I think that no one has the right to decide how a dead person would think if they were alive today. I know that the Founders were individuals. I know they did NOT have a 'point of view'. I know they had a variety of points of view. I know that they fought and argued with each other. I know that anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this was partisan bullshit, designed to inflame the right. I think that Maher's is a fucking bullshit artist.

I know that both the right and the left lay claim to people that they have no right to lay claim to... in order to justify more partisan bullshit.

 

[Greenbeard]

And.... before you talk about taxes not going up.... I would refer you to the list of taxes in the new Health Care bill.

They want to take to the streets because FSA contributions are capped (above the current average contribution)? Or maybe they're afraid their favorite tax deductions will be lessened? Intolerable tax increases!

 

[Sarah G]

Oh, cool. When, exactly, did Maher interview the Founding Fathers.... and it's interesting to know that they all agree... because they sure as hell didn't when they were alive.

And.... for the record, I would be saying the same thing if Glen Beck claimed that the Founders (as a group) would support the TEA Parties.

It is no wonder that the country is such a fucking mess. Generally, we have no concept of 'critical thinking'.

You think we have to interview them to understand their pov?

There's a really good book called John Adams by David McCullough. Historical and factual. There's also an HBO miniseries they show every July 4th.

Learn something.

I think that no one has the right to decide how a dead person would think if they were alive today. I know that the Founders were individuals. I know they did NOT have a 'point of view'. I know they had a variety of points of view. I know that they fought and argued with each other. I know that anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this was partisan bullshit, designed to inflame the right. I think that Maher's is a fucking bullshit artist.

I know that both the right and the left lay claim to people that they have no right to lay claim to... in order to justify more partisan bullshit.

There were several povs and then there was John Adams. I really wish you and others would stop with the "both parties do it" rhetoric. It's not true and what's more, it's silly.

Maher is a political animal and he's funny. I don't think this particular comment was bullshit.

 

[Cuyo]

One thing's for sure - In their day, if they were advocating for the wealthy (eg Madison), they made no bones about the fact that they were advocating for the wealthy.

If I had to venture a guess, I think at minimum they'd be rolling their eyes something fierce at average people tricked into voting against their self interests.

 

[California Girl]

You think we have to interview them to understand their pov?

There's a really good book called John Adams by David McCullough. Historical and factual. There's also an HBO miniseries they show every July 4th.

Learn something.

I think that no one has the right to decide how a dead person would think if they were alive today. I know that the Founders were individuals. I know they did NOT have a 'point of view'. I know they had a variety of points of view. I know that they fought and argued with each other. I know that anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this was partisan bullshit, designed to inflame the right. I think that Maher's is a fucking bullshit artist.

I know that both the right and the left lay claim to people that they have no right to lay claim to... in order to justify more partisan bullshit.

There were several povs and then there was John Adams. I really wish you and others would stop with the "both parties do it" rhetoric. It's not true and what's more, it's silly.

Maher is a political animal and he's funny. I don't think this particular comment was bullshit.

I say 'both sides do it' because that is factually accurate. I've seen right wingers claim the Founders thoughts. I've seen the left wingers claim the same. Neither are right to claim the Founding Fathers. Maher's is not right. The Founders encompassed a wide variety of views. Some of which would fit within one or other of today's parties. That does not give anyone the right to take ownership of the Founders. Those men belong to all the people - not just one party. It is divisive and downright dishonest to claim otherwise.

Maher is an ass. And, his comment was offensive, divisive bullshit. I thought Obama wanted a better, more civil discourse. Is this how you think you will achieve that? Because I can guarantee you... it is not.

 

[Cuyo]

I think that no one has the right to decide how a dead person would think if they were alive today. I know that the Founders were individuals. I know they did NOT have a 'point of view'. I know they had a variety of points of view. I know that they fought and argued with each other. I know that anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this was partisan bullshit, designed to inflame the right. I think that Maher's is a fucking bullshit artist.

I know that both the right and the left lay claim to people that they have no right to lay claim to... in order to justify more partisan bullshit.

There were several povs and then there was John Adams. I really wish you and others would stop with the "both parties do it" rhetoric. It's not true and what's more, it's silly.

Maher is a political animal and he's funny. I don't think this particular comment was bullshit.

I say 'both sides do it' because that is factually accurate. I've seen right wingers claim the Founders thoughts. I've seen the left wingers claim the same.

I hate to do this, but sometimes I have to. There are people who believe the moon landing was faked. Question: Does that mean there's any meaningful discourse happening about whether it was or not? Answer: No.

Do you see what I'm saying here? Yes, left-wingers exist that claim the founders. But it's such a minority as a percentage of the total phenomenon. In other words, it is so profoundly a right-wing practice, that it's just shy of being exclusively right-wing. Maher's comments in and of themselves were only made to expose and debunk the comments and actions of right-wingers regarding the founders.

Just saying "Both sides do it" is disingenuous, because it suggests that they do it roughly equally. They don't. It's so rare on the left that it's practically non-existent.

 

[California Girl]

There were several povs and then there was John Adams. I really wish you and others would stop with the "both parties do it" rhetoric. It's not true and what's more, it's silly.

Maher is a political animal and he's funny. I don't think this particular comment was bullshit.

I say 'both sides do it' because that is factually accurate. I've seen right wingers claim the Founders thoughts. I've seen the left wingers claim the same.

I hate to do this, but sometimes I have to. There are people who believe the moon landing was faked. Question: Does that mean there's any meaningful discourse happening about whether it was or not? Answer: No.

Do you see what I'm saying here? Yes, left-wingers exist that claim the founders. But it's such a minority as a percentage of the total phenomenon. In other words, it is so profoundly a right-wing practice, that it's just shy of being exclusively right-wing. Maher's comments in and of themselves were only made to expose and debunk the comments and actions of right-wingers regarding the founders.

Just saying "Both sides do it" is disingenuous, because it suggests that they do it roughly equally. They don't. It's so rare on the left that it's practically non-existent.

In my view, there are several reasons why it is less common from the left:

1. As a general rule, they do not have the same respect for the founders as the right.

2. The right have been pretty good at linking the views of individual founders to their own principles. That is, generally, because the right cling to the Constitution as the roadmap for the country. The left, not so much.

3. Until recently, the left saw the Founders as a right wing bunch. Now, they've understood that millions of Americans respect the founders and the Constitution. So now, they're trying to claim ownership of both.

It's a vote winning tactic.

 

[Ravi]

This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..

SNIP:
posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
printer-friendly
Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for America’s history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have “hated” their “guts.”
As you’d come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as “teabaggers” – which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.
Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were “nothing like them.” No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How?

Here comes Maher:video at site.

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.

Video (via Mediaite):

SEE VIDEO( more from the idiot Maher) and read it all with comments.
Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would?ve hated your guts Hot Air

Smell like them...hahahaha! How un-PC. And how amusing you are upset by un-PC humor.

 

[Cuyo]

I say 'both sides do it' because that is factually accurate. I've seen right wingers claim the Founders thoughts. I've seen the left wingers claim the same.

I hate to do this, but sometimes I have to. There are people who believe the moon landing was faked. Question: Does that mean there's any meaningful discourse happening about whether it was or not? Answer: No.

Do you see what I'm saying here? Yes, left-wingers exist that claim the founders. But it's such a minority as a percentage of the total phenomenon. In other words, it is so profoundly a right-wing practice, that it's just shy of being exclusively right-wing. Maher's comments in and of themselves were only made to expose and debunk the comments and actions of right-wingers regarding the founders.

Just saying "Both sides do it" is disingenuous, because it suggests that they do it roughly equally. They don't. It's so rare on the left that it's practically non-existent.

In my view, there are several reasons why it is less common from the left:

1. As a general rule, they do not have the same respect for the founders as the right.

2. The right have been pretty good at linking the views of individual founders to their own principles. That is, generally, because the right cling to the Constitution as the roadmap for the country. The left, not so much.

3. Until recently, the left saw the Founders as a right wing bunch. Now, they've understood that millions of Americans respect the founders and the Constitution. So now, they're trying to claim ownership of both.

It's a vote winning tactic.

And in my view, they're just not as shameless as the right. But if we can agree on just the facts (in this case, that it's far more prevalent on the right), we can set aside our views on why. Just this once.

 

[daveman]

Unlike Maher, I don't speak on behalf of anyone, living or dead. To do so, in my opinion, would be arrogant, and more than a tad stupid. I would be no better than Maher. I need not prove him wrong. He made the ridiculous claim. Anyone who takes his claim as fact is, frankly, far too stupid to understand the stupidity of his remarks. In short, he made the claim - which is unprovable - and that, to me, speaks enough of his intellect.

Well you're correct, it's impossible to ascertain what the FF's would've thought of this 'Movement.' But as far as the accuracy of his factual claims in his little rant, I think we can agree they're more or less correct. I also think the average teaperson has a very warped view of who the founding fathers were as people - That I agree with.

You are welcome to agree with him. That doesn't make you - or him - right. I personally think the Founders would love the dissent of the TEA Partiers. They founded this country on dissent. They loved a good revolution, our Founders. Personally, I think some of them would love the TEAs, others would disagree with the TEAs. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Maher's own stupidity) the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued. They threatened one another. They were passionate about this country. So are we. In that, we are all the same.

The FF opposed an oppressive government. The current batch of Statists support oppressive government. It's reasonable to presume that they would also have supported King George, and would have informed on the dangerous rebels who were seeking to secure freedom for themselves and their fellow countrymen.


So...it looks like Maher's an idiot.

 

[Cuyo]

Well you're correct, it's impossible to ascertain what the FF's would've thought of this 'Movement.' But as far as the accuracy of his factual claims in his little rant, I think we can agree they're more or less correct. I also think the average teaperson has a very warped view of who the founding fathers were as people - That I agree with.

You are welcome to agree with him. That doesn't make you - or him - right. I personally think the Founders would love the dissent of the TEA Partiers. They founded this country on dissent. They loved a good revolution, our Founders. Personally, I think some of them would love the TEAs, others would disagree with the TEAs. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Maher's own stupidity) the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued. They threatened one another. They were passionate about this country. So are we. In that, we are all the same.

The FF opposed an oppressive government. The current batch of Statists support oppressive government. It's reasonable to presume that they would also have supported King George, and would have informed on the dangerous rebels who were seeking to secure freedom for themselves and their fellow countrymen.


So...it looks like Maher's an idiot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a stupidity competition going on that I'm not aware of?

 

[daveman]

You are welcome to agree with him. That doesn't make you - or him - right. I personally think the Founders would love the dissent of the TEA Partiers. They founded this country on dissent. They loved a good revolution, our Founders. Personally, I think some of them would love the TEAs, others would disagree with the TEAs. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Maher's own stupidity) the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued. They threatened one another. They were passionate about this country. So are we. In that, we are all the same.

The FF opposed an oppressive government. The current batch of Statists support oppressive government. It's reasonable to presume that they would also have supported King George, and would have informed on the dangerous rebels who were seeking to secure freedom for themselves and their fellow countrymen.


So...it looks like Maher's an idiot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a stupidity competition going on that I'm not aware of?

What's stupid about it? Statists support big oppressive government. King George had a big oppressive government. Statists don't support individual liberty. The FF did.

Do I need to use smaller words?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The FF opposed an oppressive government. The current batch of Statists support oppressive government. It's reasonable to presume that they would also have supported King George, and would have informed on the dangerous rebels who were seeking to secure freedom for themselves and their fellow countrymen.


So...it looks like Maher's an idiot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a stupidity competition going on that I'm not aware of?

What's stupid about it? Statists support big oppressive government. King George had a big oppressive government. Statists don't support individual liberty. The FF did.

Do I need to use smaller words?

Really it's stupid? I think it even more stupid to question the content of Daves post. He's dead on target.

 

[Cuyo]

The FF opposed an oppressive government. The current batch of Statists support oppressive government. It's reasonable to presume that they would also have supported King George, and would have informed on the dangerous rebels who were seeking to secure freedom for themselves and their fellow countrymen.


So...it looks like Maher's an idiot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a stupidity competition going on that I'm not aware of?

What's stupid about it? Statists support big oppressive government. King George had a big oppressive government. Statists don't support individual liberty. The FF did.

Do I need to use smaller words?

No, you need to use less ridiculous words.