Bill Maher's attacks on Obama and the Democrats in general

[DroppinScience]

In case you missed it (both articles contain videos from his "Real Time" show):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/bill-maher-takes-on-obama_n_215338.html

And then his follow up which attacks the entire Democratic party:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/bill-maher-democrats-have_n_218593.html

All I have to say to Bill Maher is this: thank you, thank you, thank you!

We get more than enough illegitimate attacks from the right-wing which essentially are way off in some kind of fantasy land devoid of reality. But it is truly rare to hear the critics that are to the left of Obama (I'm sure this very idea has sent shivers and heart attacks down valvano, No Fenders, and RobMoney's way) get as much prominence as Bill Maher. This is truly a breath of fresh air.

Maher has essentially said the same things as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, et al. have been saying for a while, but none of them say it nearly as funny as Maher says it. For that I am grateful and I hope he keeps it up for as long as Obama and the Democrats have no spine when it comes to standing up to Wall Street and corporate interests.

[RobMoney$]

How absolutely predictable.

Criticizing the President and the party in power is his entire act.
He wouldn't have much of a show if he came on every week and simply agreed and praised the Democrats for their policies, would he?

Maher is a lousy 3rd rate comedian. It's pathetic that you see him as an example of political journalism.
He's a political shock-jock, he's Howard Stern sans the fart jokes and sleazy women.

[saz]

no, it's not his entire act. his act includes not only politics, but religion, culture, sex, drugs, relationships, dating, marriage, history, pop culture, television, film, radio et al. he's not only afraid to speak his mind, but is also fiercely independent, who has voted for both nader and schwarzenegger.

[Documad]

I always hated him but lately he bothers me a whole lot less. I'm not entirely sure why. I don't find him funny but the panel thing on his current show works better than on his old show.

He goes off on the american diet a lot and I agree with what he's saying but I'm curious about what the man eats. When he had the food guy on a week or so ago, Mayer was more extreme than the food guy.

By the way, I will always blame him for giving Ann Coulter a stage on Politically Incorrect. I never heard of her before she started doing that show.

[yeahwho]

Not to be a bitch but I posted this last week, sort of buried in the "Obama Hate and Consequences (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1675073&postcount=11)" along with another link (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1675126&postcount=15) that was copied and used just a few posts below by another poster.

I want some sort of fucking royalty payment from you guys.

[DroppinScience]

Not to be a bitch but I posted this last week, sort of buried in the "Obama Hate and Consequences (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1675073&postcount=11)" along with another link (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1675126&postcount=15) that was copied and used just a few posts below by another poster.

I want some sort of fucking royalty payment from you guys.

You bitch! :p

Okay, your royalties are in the mail, yeahwho.

Anyways, I agree with you Documad on Bill Maher and Ann Coulter. He certainly deserves some blame for making her a prominent figure in the media. The two were friends for a while (they never agreed politically, though), but at least Maher disassociated with her once her comments got more and more vile and hateful (such as attacking 9/11 widows and so forth).

Staying back on topic (I know how hard this is for you guys), I think it's quite important that the media landscape counters the histrionics of fat weirdos like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh who have little or no understanding of politics nor of where ideologies are placed within the left-right spectrum. The Democrats of today are essentially the Republicans you'd find in the '50s and '60s while the Republicans have moved into the nut house. Quite sad, really.

[RobMoney$]

Remeber when he called our troops cowards and suicide bombers heroes, or something like that?
Yeah, fuck him.

[saz]

no, he never called the troops "cowards". he's a huge supporter of the military, the cia (and even israel, too).

[RobMoney$]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97KllcZidKQ


He called the US military cowards.
I stand corrected.

[QueenAdrock]

He called the tactics cowardly (versus the enemy's).

Cowardly: lacking courage; very fearful or timid.

He said that launching missiles safely from thousands of miles away is cowardly, whereas geting in a plane knowing you're going to die for your cause is not cowardly. It's political suicide to say, absolutely (most people will think you love terrorists or whatever else if you say something like that), but to play devil's advocate, how is what he's saying wrong? Everyone will use an emotional argument of "We're America and he's talking about our troops, so of course he's wrong," but I'd like to hear an actual intelligent, well-thought out, non-knee-jerk reaction as to how he is incorrect.

...And I am fully aware that even raising this question will, in fact, make me a traitor and a terrorist, rather than an inquiring and curious mind. :rolleyes:

[saz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97KllcZidKQ


He called the US military cowards.
I stand corrected.

no, he was criticizing the clinton administration's policy of firing missiles at al qaeda camps in afghanistan, as opposed to sending in the troops to do the job.

interestingly enough both rush limbaugh and david horowitz defended maher's right to free speech and said his show shouldn't be cancelled.

[RobMoney$]

That's weird,
Did you happen to see the vid I linked in the Bill Clinton thread I made yesterday?
It was a video of him explaining, in rather surprisng detail, exactly why he couldn't send troops into Afghanistan at the time.

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0LUZrvUKfU&feature=fvw
Check around the 5:00 mark.

[saz]

right, the fbi and cia refused to certify that bin laden was responsible. but he did end up ordering missile strikes. look, i hear clinton, at least he tried, but al qaeda was bombing embassies, as well as the uss cole and the world trade centre. i think the troops should've been sent in.

[RobMoney$]

Yes, you and Bill Maher know better than Bill Clinton and Richard Clark.
OK.

[Bob]

Yes, you and Bill Maher know better than Bill Clinton and Richard Clark.
OK.

right - next time you criticize something obama does i'm going to quote this, fair warning

[RobMoney$]

Oh, the irony will be soo embaressing.

Have I questioned Obama on war strategy?
Considering he hasn't been met with that challenge yet, I don't think I have.

Questioning someone's economic policy, which I do with Obama, is a bit different than questioning military strategy years after the fact, having the benefit of hindsight, and knowledge which may not have been available at the time, even to the President (which saz is doing).

I mean I've had an econ class or two in my collegiate career. What's the extent of saz's military education?

[Bob]

Oh, the irony will be soo embaressing.

Have I questioned Obama on war strategy?
Considering he hasn't been met with that challenge yet, I don't think I have.

Questioning someone's economic policy, which I do with Obama, is a bit different than questioning military strategy years after the fact, having the benefit of hindsight, and knowledge which may not have been available at the time, even to the President (which saz is doing).

I mean I've had an econ class or two in my collegiate career. What's the extent of saz's military education?

that distinction is insane. criticism of economic policy = ok, but criticism of war strategy = out of line because what do you know that the president doesn't? aren't presidents generally informed about economic affairs too (or at least, they seek the counsel of people who are)? i hear you about the benefit of hindsight and i can't disagree with you as far as that goes but i don't understand how you can draw a line between military and economic decisions like that, where one is fair game but we owe the president a substantial degree of deference on the other. assuming that's what you were saying. maybe you weren't. do you plan to question obama's war strategy when you get the chance, or will you be giving him the benefit of the doubt?

and just so there's no misunderstanding here, i'm not saying people shouldn't criticize obama; criticize away, that's what we do in this country. i just don't think it's entirely appropriate to say "who are you to criticize, you think you know better than him?"

[RobMoney$]

I guess what I'm saying is, if some military conflict were to arise, I'd allow Obama (or any President) a lot more latitude before being critical of any decision he were to make because I realize that as a civilian, I don't have the proper facts to judge whether the decision was sound or not.

1. Opinions on economics are just that, opinions. They're neither right or wrong, there just what you believe. I could be completely wrong about Obama's throwing a trillion dollars away being a mistake, it could turn out to be exactly what brings us out of this problem.
Saz criticizing Clinton for not sending troops into Afghanistan could be argued with fact. Clinton didn't have assurance from the FBI & CIA that Al Qeida was in fact responsible for the USS Cole and our Embassy Bombings AT THAT TIME, and as public citizens we surely weren't priviledged to that info.


2. I have zero education on military strategy, and therefore would be a lot less comfortable criticizing something I'm not very knowledgable about.

[saz]

again, as i previously stated (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1676777&postcount=13), yes, the fbi and cia refused to certify that bin laden was responsible. but, they eventually did certify that it was al qaeda, as clinton did end up ordering missile strikes. and i'm not blasting clinton here, or going for the jugular like maher likes to do. i agree that at least clinton did something, and i have tremendous respect and admiration for richard clarke, he is extremely intelligent and competent. i think it's great that you think highly of clarke too, but i don't understand how you can appreciate dick cheney at times, the same dick cheney who blamed clarke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOA5N8AZ-nU) for 911. fox news also attacked clarke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqzKKFJSPvc&feature=related) with their gop talking points.

i don't understand the argument though that anyone can criticize economic policy, however you can't criticize military policy, even though there has been a wide consensus for a very long time that the illegal and unnecessary invasion of iraq was done on the cheap by the bush administration, which needed hundreds of thousands of additional troops to maintain security post-invasion, and an actual occupation and withdrawal plan or exit strategy.

[Echewta]

iRAN is a new Apple treadmill.

LOL