Maher proves, yet again, the real racists are on the left

[HUGGY]

Al Gore is a horse's ass with an ego the size of the Mississippi for accomplishments the size of a mud puddle. I don't know shit about Biden, all these months into the Obama administration -- which tells me plenty about that man.

I dunno where you get the idea that a socially liberal person cannot think critically, teapartysamurai, but t'aint the case. Slavish dedication to fixed ideas that have no real world proof is not encouraged in Liberals, though judging by your posts, it is most welcome in Conservatives.

What's the matter with you, that you cannot see what an ass Palin is? How can you perceive the assholeness of Pelosi so clearly but fail to see THE VERY SAME thing -- stupidity and arrogance -- in Palin? The Truth does not alter itself to suit depending on who speaks it -- Truth is immutable. Are you in need of some sort of medication?

I am a Republican, asshole. I'd like people with the sort of ability to think for themselves you have demonstrated to go back to their snake-handling churches and GET THE FUCK out of the Conservative side of politics. While you are busy whingeing on and on and on about abortion or whatever burr you have up your ass, this country's economic future grows blacker every day. We are approaching The Point Of No Return, but those of us who have noticed cannot get a fucking thing done because YOU folks are running around acting like a bunch of little girls after someone stole their My Little Pony collection.

Grow up or shut up. You are just making noise.

I have had some personal written correspondence with Al Gore on a couple of my inventions. I found him polite, intelligent and warm in his responses. I believe Gore is a scapegoat for many whom don't have a clue what they are talking about..not surprising.

HUGGY, the man is a pol. He rose to become Veep. OF COURSE he's charming. How the hell is "charming" an accomplishment?

Some might say that for me "charming" might be an accomplishment.

 

[Madeline]

Not I. I always find you charming.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

How is Dennis Miller relevant for a discussion of Bill Maher?

just because some other idiot does something does not mean it is right or excusable.

Uhhh, because they are both comedians who do "satire"?

Only one is far "right" and one is far "left"?

Because I have heard the right "crying and whining" over both Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, but I have never heard the left "cry and whine" about Dennis Miller?

Because the left can take it, but the right is simply to "sensitive" and "fragile"?

I hold no brief for Stewert or Miller.

The question here is, do you think Maher's remarks were acceptable? Do you think that because person a is an ass hole, that it justifies and excuses the fact that person b is the same, but wears different label?

Can we skip the left right shit and go the heart of the matter and say that this is unexcusible no matter what?

That is what is bugging us over here, that because Maher claims to be on the left, he gets a pass on his bigotry. I am willing to stipulate that bigotry is bad. Are you willing to join me and agree that bigotry is bad, no matter who does it?

 

[Madeline]

Why would Bill Maher's joke be unacceptable? What are we, a bunch of hand-wringing PC doily-makers? Political satire is rude and crude and funny as hell. Dennis Miller makes me laugh too.

Where's the beef?

(I just love this; a dozen whites sitting around deciding if another white's joke about a black guy should be so offensive to us we can no longer watch his show. Can anyone spell a-r-r-o-g-a-n-t?)

 

[Ravi]

How is Dennis Miller relevant for a discussion of Bill Maher?

just because some other idiot does something does not mean it is right or excusable.

Simple.

rdean is that flipside of TPS's coin I previously alluded to in this thread.

manifold: calling Obama a boy isn't racist.
manifold: calling college students nappy headed hos isn't racist.
manifold: calling Obama curious george isn't racist.
manifold: calling Obama a gangsta is racist.

I guess in manifold's world it depends on who is speaking.

 

[manifold]

How is Dennis Miller relevant for a discussion of Bill Maher?

just because some other idiot does something does not mean it is right or excusable.

Simple.

rdean is that flipside of TPS's coin I previously alluded to in this thread.

manifold: calling Obama a boy isn't racist.
manifold: calling college students nappy headed hos isn't racist.
manifold: calling Obama curious george isn't racist.
manifold: calling Obama a gangsta is racist.

I guess in manifold's world it depends on who is speaking.

ravi: liar
ravi: liar
ravi: liar
ravi: liar

same shit, different day.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I haven't seen those posts of Manifold's. But we are not talking a goofy poster on a message board. We are talking Bill Maher. If Manifold said that then I will dump on Manifold. (If you said that Manifold, then you qualify as a jerk, Kay?)

But ignoring Manifold, are you going to say Maher's remarks are acceptable? If they are, and again we ignore the whole universe of jerkasses besides Maher, how are they acceptable?

 

[manifold]

I haven't seen those posts of Manifold's. But we are not talking a goofy poster on a message board. We are talking Bill Maher. If Manifold said that then I will dump on Manifold. (If you said that Manifold, then you qualify as a jerk, Kay?)

But ignoring Manifold, are you going to say Maher's remarks are acceptable? If they are, and again we ignore the whole universe of jerkasses besides Maher, how are they acceptable?

Ravi is lying... yet again.

 

[Modbert]

Ironically, a bunch of righties complaining about PC in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/119214-political-correctness.html

While a hardcore rightie does exactly what the "left" supposedly has a patent on.

 

[Modbert]

By the way, Bill Maher isn't racist. This is quite a lame thread.

 

[Ravi]

manifold is such a coward that he can't admit to what he's said.

Sad, but hardly surprising.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem here is not the left has bigots, because it does, but that the right does it best to hide the fact that the southern wing of the GOP has many racists; because the right is trying to revise Joe McCarthy into a hero; because the right is incredibly trying to take credit for civil rights and its successes.

The American people know a fraud, and until the GOP straightens up and flys right, it will remain a minority pa.rty

 

[Jack Fate]

The problem here is not the left has bigots, because it does, but that the right does it best to hide the fact that the southern wing of the GOP has many racists; because the right is trying to revise Joe McCarthy into a hero; because the right is incredibly trying to take credit for civil rights and its successes.

The American people know a fraud, and until the GOP straightens up and flys right, it will remain a minority pa.rty

All I know is that more republicans than democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

 

[Valerie]

All I know is that more republicans than democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Not exactly...Only when you ignore real numbers like this commentary below does.


Expressed as a percentage it appears to be true, but it is actually false.

On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bill Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act - December 1999

In real numbers that's 46 Democrats to 27 Republicans....152 Democrats to 138 Republicans...This author is misrepresenting the facts and apparently confusing people by using percentages.

 

[Ravi]

All I know is that more republicans than democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Not exactly...Only when you ignore real numbers like this commentary below does.


Expressed as a percentage it appears to be true, but it is actually false.

On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bill Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act - December 1999

In real numbers that's 46 Democrats to 27 Republicans....152 Democrats to 138 Republicans...This author is misrepresenting the facts and apparently confusing people by using percentages.

Republicans are easily confused. Either that, or they believe what they want to believe and not the truth.

 

[Ravi]

Oh wait...it is now fashionable to claim that anyone that voted for the CRA is a racist.

Have you met manifold?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem here is not the left has bigots, because it does, but that the right does it best to hide the fact that the southern wing of the GOP has many racists; because the right is trying to revise Joe McCarthy into a hero; because the right is incredibly trying to take credit for civil rights and its successes.

The American people know a fraud, and until the GOP straightens up and flys right, it will remain a minority pa.rty

LOLOL!

 

[xsited1]

Maher proves, yet again, the real racists are on the left

Don't be silly. Maher is a member of the Left. Leftist moonbats cannot be racists. That's just not possible.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

ravi: liar
ravi: liar
ravi: liar
ravi: liar

same shit, different day.

This may be a syndrome

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/119046-the-black-founders.html

 

[Valerie]

All I know is that more republicans than democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Not exactly...Only when you ignore real numbers like this commentary below does.


Expressed as a percentage it appears to be true, but it is actually false.

On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bill Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act - December 1999

In real numbers that's 46 Democrats to 27 Republicans....152 Democrats to 138 Republicans...This author is misrepresenting the facts and apparently confusing people by using percentages.

Republicans are easily confused. Either that, or they believe what they want to believe and not the truth.

You have to always be careful when you see these types of things expressed as percentages it can be very misleading, to say the least...