Make sure to subscribe to my Youtube channel if this kind of commentary is up your alley.
Whenever someone tells me that liberalism is a mental disorder I get slightly uncomfortable, but occasionally it’s hard not to think that when a guy like Bill Maher demonstrates that moral relativism has done something incredibly weird to his mind. The HBO host turned into a giddy schoolgirl when atheist guest Sam Harris called Islam the “mother lode of bad ideas,” but on Friday night he labeled the late Navy SEAL war hero Chris Kyle as a “psychopath patriot” for calling al Qaeda-inspired Sunni terrorists, those who use children as suicide bombers, and future-members of the Islamic State group (the men currently chopping off heads in Iraq and Syria) “savages.”
Mediaite reported Mr. Maher’s opinion on “American Sniper” and Chris Kyle Jan. 23:
Hurt Locker made $17 million because it was a little ambiguous and thoughtful. And this one is just ‘American hero. He’s a psychopath patriot and we love him.’ You know, I read some of the quotes from the real Chris Kyle. He said: “I hate the damn savages.” Talking about the Iraqis: “And I’ve been fighting and I always will. I love killing bad guys. Even with the pain, I loved what I was doing. Maybe war isn’t really fun, but I certainly was enjoying it.’ I don’t know. Eisenhower once said, “I hate wars. Only a soldier who has lived it, can.” I just don’t see this guy in the same league as Eisenhower. I’m sorry. And, if you’re a Christian — I now this is a Christian country — ‘I hate the damn savages,’ […] it doesn’t seem like a Christian thing to say. […] The idea that Americans cannot see an ambiguity — that someone has to be pure hero or pure traitor — is ridiculous.”
It wouldn’t be an installment of HBO Real Time without taking a cheap shot at Christians, would it? In October, however, Bill Maher was loving every minute of atheist Sam Harris’ conclusion that Islam is the “mother lode of bad ideas.”
CNN reported Oct. 16:
Ben Affleck’s appearance on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” on Friday turned into a somewhat heated discussion when Maher and author Sam Harris voiced their opinions on Islam.
“Gone Girl” star Affleck took umbrage at the pair’s contention that Islam is, in Harris’ words, a “mother lode of bad ideas” and that liberals are squeamish about criticizing Islam for stances on women and LGBT issues because people “have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism gets confused with bigotry toward Muslims as people.”
Bill Maher’s rants on Islam are prolific — and many of them do not contain the kind of “ambiguous and thoughtful” commentary he praises The Hurt Locker for. Most of them are not very ambiguous at all, and yet he bashes a guy who was deployed to Iraq four times for calling Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s henchmen and like-minded Iraqis “savages.” Telling.
In Bill Maher’s world, American snipers must be held to the General Eisenhower standard for articulating their world view or be deemed a “psychopath patriot.” If you’re a Christian, then you must utter each word and phrase with the tact and grace of a saint — even if you watched your buddy’s face get blown off while deployed to a war zone. If you’re an atheist, then you can make blanket statements about how Islam is inherently bad, and it’s considered nuanced. Is that a sign of a mental disorder on Bill Maher’s part, or are viewers just watching what happens when a man gets lost inside the maze of moral relativism he’s created in his own mind? It’s a tough question.
On Friday’s episode or “Real Time,” comedian Bill Burr tried to tell Mr. Maher that it isn’t right to “sum up a man by one quote taken out of context.” The host was having none of it, because doing that has served his bank account quite well for many years now. One might say that twisting a man’s words to further a political agenda is not a “Christian” thing to do, but since Bill Maher is an atheist — and right and wrong is simply dictated by whatever he decides on a moment-to-moment basis — then it’s no big deal.
Keep finding ways to slime veterans who served their country to the best of their ability, Bill Maher. Most Americans are willing to cut an Iraq War veteran with four tours under his belt some slack for not describing the experience as if he were a five-star general (yes, that’s right — five-star) who would go on to become the 34th President of the United States. With every petty insult hurled at Chris Kyle by men like Michael Moore and Seth Rogen, modern liberalism’s true colors are revealed. For that, I thank them.
When it was announced the Ben Affleck would be the Dark Knight in 2015’s ‘Superman vs. Batman: Dawn of Justice,’ I said that if director Zack Snyder were smart, then he would tell his new hire to stick to movie-talk. I said Mr. Affleck lives in a Hollywood bubble, where everyone thinks along the same lines and tells each other how smart they are at cocktail parties, and that he generally has a hard time discussing politics without alienating fans (e.g., When he sees a Republican actor on screen he thinks, “I probably wouldn’t like this person…”). His near-meltdown on Bill Maher’s Real Time on Oct. 3 proves nicely that Mr. Affleck doesn’t know how to deal with smart people who disagree with him.
Sam Harris: Liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy. They’ll criticize white theocracy. They’ll criticize Christians. They’ll still get agitated over the abortion clinic bombing that happened in 1984, but when you want to talk about the treatment of women and homosexuals and free thinkers and public intellectuals in the Muslim world, I would argue that liberals have failed us.
Ben Affleck: Thank God you’re here.
Sam Harris: The crucial point of confusion is that we have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people, and that’s intellectually ridiculous.
Ben Affleck: Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You’re the interpreter of that?
Same Harris: I’m actually well-educated on this topic.
Ben Affleck: I’m asking you. So you’re saying that Islamophobia is not a real thing?
Sam Harris: I’m not denying that certain people are bigoted against Muslims as people.
Ben Affleck: “That’s big of you.”
Bill Maher: “Why are you so hostile about this concept?”
Ben Affleck: “Because it’s gross! It’s racist! It’s like saying ‘you shifty Jew.’”
Bill Maher: You’re not listening to what we are saying.”
For almost ten minutes, Ben Affleck responded to a serious discussion about Islam by giving angry little sniffs of his nostrils, fidgeting in his chair, making sarcastic little side-comments, interrupting, waving his hands around and slamming them down on the desk in front of him. He generally gave off body language that said, “I’m Batman! I should be beating these ‘racists’ up, but I can’t because I’m in my Bruce Wayne clothes on live television…”
In short, Ben Affleck was a petulant man-boy.
Faced with actual statistics about female genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa, the percentages of Muslims who believe a man should be killed for leaving the religion, and troublesome data regarding opinions on free speech — in Western countries — Ben Affleck’s response was to call Bill Maher a “racist,” to say he “doesn’t understand idiots,” and that “we’ve killed more Muslims than they killed us by an awful lot,” (as if George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all just have a thing for militarily engaging Muslim countries for no other reason than to kill Muslims). Ben Affleck says that the Islamic State group couldn’t fill a “AA ballpark in West Virgina,” while ignoring the fact that it only took 19 al Qaeda terrorists to bring down the World Trade Center Towers on Sept. 11, 2011. Shall I go on?
In less than 10 minutes, the man who will play Batman next summer makes it close to impossible for millions of moviegoers to see Zack Snyder’s film with an open mind. The so-called defender of Gotham is, in real life, a man who can’t even defend his own political position without looking like he might cry on national television. He had no problem mocking Catholicism in Dogma, but yet he and his buddy Kevin Smith would probably consider it “racist” to appear in a similar film titled “Fatwa.” Telling.
Next summer I will see Superman vs. Batman, but I won’t be able to stop thinking, “Clark can end this right now. All he has to do is start talking about Islam.”
Related: Egyptian Muslims in Pew poll: We support religious freedom, but we also support killing you
Editor’s note: Hat tip KMT
Bill Maher is a very confused atheist. On one hand he mocks religious people for believing in God, but on the other hand he gives interviews with PETA where he laments the fact that Liam Neeson favors crushing the “spirits” of horses in New York City. Horses have “spirits,” according to the guy who thinks that humans are all just a bunch of atoms and molecules and random electrical impulses that just-so-happen to collide in ways that make life (and the illusion of free will) possible.
Mediate reported Thursday:
HBO’s Real Time host Bill Maher is no longer a fan of actor Liam Neeson. In a new video posted Wednesday by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Maher railed against Neeson’s support for New York City’s controversial horse carriage business.
“My life-long Liam Neeson fandom has ended, I can’t stand to look at him,” Maher said. “Why a guy would go out of his way to champion animal abuse, I have no idea. […] If anyone has ever seen a horse run wild, even in movies or whatever, you know that’s the furthest from the way these animal should be,” he concluded. “I mean they have a wonderful spirit and to get them to do that job, you have to completely break it.”
Someone needs to inform atheist Bill Maher that for guys who believe we’re all just a bunch of random electrical signals following a program we can not control, words like “should” and “spirit” are a no-no. If we’re all essentially running on a computer program that will end in black, why does he care what Liam Neeson advocates for or against? In fact, if the Real Time host wasn’t so intellectually confused he would say that Liam Neeson has no choice but to advocate for horse-and-buggy rides in New York City because that’s what his computer program is telling him to do.
Dinesh D’Souza puts Mr. Maher’s problem in perspective in his amazing book “What’s So Great About Christianity.”:
“We are moral beings. We have moral concepts like “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “evil.” We “ought” to do this and “ought not” to do that. Try as we can, we cannot avoid this way of thinking and acting. Morality is an empirical fact no less real than any other experience in the world. Kant argues that for these concepts to have any meaning or applicability whatsoever, it must be the case that we have a choice whether to do something. Ought implies can. This is not to deny that factors both material and unconscious might influence our decision. But even so, we are at least sometimes at liberty to say yes to this option and no to that option. If we never have such a choice, then it is simply false to say I “should” do this and “shouldn’t” do that because there is no possibility of deciding one way or the other. For anyone to recommend one course or action instead of another is completely pointless. If determinism is true, then no one in the world can ever refrain from anything that he or she does. The whole of morality — not just this morality or that morality but morality itself — becomes an illusion.” — (Dinesh D’Souza. What’s So Great About Christianity. 248)
Are we just a complex computer program that luckily wrote itself with the creation of the universe, or do we have free will? If we have free will, then Maher is in for a whole new load of headaches.
I’ll let Stephen Hawking describe it for him:
Now if you believe that the universe is not arbitrary, but is governed by definite laws, you ultimately have to combine the partial theories in science into a complete unified theory that will describe everything in the universe. But there is a fundamental paradox in the search for such a complete unified theory. Our ideas about scientific theories…assume we are rational beings who are free to observe the universe as we want and to draw logical deductions from what we see. In such a scheme it is reasonable to suppose that we might progress ever closer toward the laws that govern our universe. Yet if there really is a complete unified theory, it would also presumably determine our actions. And so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it! And why should it determine that we come to the right conclusions from the evidence? Might it not equally well determine that we draw the wrong conclusion?” — (Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time. 12-13)
Perhaps we should cut Bill Maher some slack, since even Stephen Hawking finds himself aimlessly wandering around inside a paradox — or perhaps not since Bill Maher regularly says really mean things about people who believe in spirits, the soul and a non-local consciousness that directs and guides us.
The point is this: Bill Maher might want to think twice the next time he mocks religious individuals, given the fact that he now finds himself defending the spirits of horses, which his atheism demands he must deny.
If you’ve ever watched HBO’s ‘Girls’ and wondered why it features so much of Lena Dunham’s skin, you’re not alone. A reporter at the Television Critics Association press tour had the same question. He asked it tactfully, and was suddenly deemed “sexist” by Judd Apatow. Producer Jenni Konner pronounced that the question had sent her into a “rage spiral.” Oddly enough, there were no “rage spirals” sent Bill Maher’s way when he made a comment that — using Konner’s standards — was certainly worth one. More on that later.
First, the “offensive” and “misogynistic” comment that irked Apatow, as reported by Entertainment Weekly.
“I don’t get the purpose of all the nudity on the show — by [Dunham] in particular,” the reporter said, according to EW. “I feel like I’m walking into a trap where you go, ‘Nobody complains about all the nudity on “Game of Thrones,”’ but I get why they do it. They do it to be salacious and titillate people. And your character is often nude at random times for no reason.” — Reporter
Now, the response by the ‘Girls’ crew:
Judd Apatow: “That was a very clumsily stated question that’s offensive on its face, and you should read it and discuss it with other people how you did that. […] It’s very offensive.”
Jenni Konner: “I literally was spacing out because I’m in such a rage spiral about that guy. […] I was just looking at him and going into this rage [over] this idea that you would talk to a woman like that and accuse a woman of showing her body too much. The idea of it just makes me sort of sick.”
Lena Dunham: “I totally get it. If you’re not into me, that’s your problem and you’re going to have to work that out with professionals.”
Now to what Bill Maher said on HBO’s ‘Real Time’ while interviewing Mike Rowe of ‘Dirty Jobs’ fame. The two were talking about 3 million good “blue-collar” jobs that can’t be filled in the U.S. because Americans either a.) won’t train to take them or b.) refuse to apply.
Bill Maher: Do you watch the HBO show ‘Girls’?
Mike Rowe: *with sarcasm* Religiously. …
Bill Maher: Well it’s very hard to imagine those chicks — who don’t have jobs and they’re sponging off their parents and doing stupid things like working at coffee shops — they would never even consider taking a job as a plumber even though the lead girl shows more ass crack every week than 100 plumbers.”
What is more “sexist” and “misogynistic,” Mr. Apatow — a reporter who simply wants to know the rationale behind what he sees as an excessive amount of nudity, or Bill Maher referring to “chicks” that “show more ass crack every week than 100 plumbers”?
Where is the “rage spiral,” Ms. Konner, for Bill Maher? Or do you only go into “rage spirals” for men with a smaller megaphone than you? When one puts the two comments side-by-side, it appears as though Bill Maher’s comment would be worthy of a “rage tornado” or perhaps a “rage vortex.” What gives?
Question for Ms. Dunham: Should Bill Maher seek help with professionals? And (admittedly, a side note) do you regret making that creepy ad where you likened voting for Barack Obama to losing your virginity — especially since most women don’t lose their virginity to a guy with a “Terror Tuesday kill list”?
One guy flatly said he “doesn’t get the purpose” of the amount of nudity on the show and he’s accused of being a sexist; the other guy refers to “chicks” like Dunham and likens her to the stereotypical (male) plumber who shows too much of his hairy butt to customers — and crickets chirped.
Given that ‘Girls’ and ‘Real Time’ both air on the same channel, one would think that Mr. Apatow would want to make it known that there isn’t room for such “misogynistic” talk amongst HBO family. I guess not. Either the ‘Girls’ crew sits silently while Maher does his thing because he has too much clout, or they do so because he’s an ideological ally. Which is it? My money is on the fact that Bill Maher tends to defend the guy Ms. Dunham lost her “voting virginity” to in 2008.
If any of the “chicks” over at ‘Girls’ — particularly Jenni Konner — go into a “rage spiral” now that Maher’s observations have been more forthrightly brought to their attention, I’ll let you know. Chances are that you’ll see Lena Dunham naked again before Bill Maher gets a public earful from Judd Apatow, since they like to talk about drugs together on ‘Real Time.’
The Washingon Post’s coverage of a Pew poll on the world’s Muslim’s is one of the funniest things I’ve read in awhile.
Poor Max Fisher doesn’t know what to do with himself:
According to Pew’s data, 78 percent of Afghan Muslims say they support laws condemning to death anyone who gives up Islam. In both Egypt and Pakistan, 64 percent report holding this view. This is also the majority view among Muslims in Malaysia, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.
It’s important to note, though, that this view is not widely held in all Muslim countries or even among Muslims in these regions. In Bangladesh, another majority Muslim South Asian state that has a shared heritage with Pakistan, it is about half as prevalent, with 36 percent saying they support it. Fewer than one in six Tunisian Muslims hold the view, as do fewer than one in seven Muslims in Lebanon, which has a strong Christian minority. …
It’s also important to note that majorities of Muslims in the countries surveyed, sometimes vast majorities, said they support religious freedom. That includes, for example, more than 75 percent of Egyptians and more than 95 percent of Pakistanis. It might seem like a glaring contradiction. And it is a contradiction, but it might make a little more sense that so many people could hold seemingly mutually exclusive views — religious freedom is good, but anyone who leaves Islam should be executed — if one understands the particular history of apostasy in Islam.
How sad is it when a guy has to put a smiley face on the fact that only 36% of Bangladesh’s Muslim population wants you dead if you leave the faith. And hey, only 16.6% of Tunisians feel the same way.
The topper is that “sometimes vast majorities” of Muslims in these countries “support religious freedom.” Got it. And by “got it” I mean I do not. But that’s okay too, because Mr. Fisher assures us that we all need to do is a better job understanding the history of Islam; once we do that we’ll be good to go.
Remember when Bill Maher generally destroyed deranged liberal professor Brian Levin of California State University in San Bernardino after the Boston terror attack? I do. It was classic:
“I mean, there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam … So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”
Bill Maher essentially states the cold hard truth that the Pew poll shows quantitatively, and the professor’s response is, for all intents and purposes: “I have a nice Muslim dentist.”
Bill Maher points out that no one would be able to write “The Book of Islam” as a musical, and the professor’s only comeback is “I have nice Muslim students.” And yet, at the end of the segment the two are giving each other high-fives when they agree that the primary reason why militias and patriot groups have been created in great numbers since President Obama took office is probably because “white guys don’t want to see a black guy on Air Force One.” Interesting.
Here’s a question for The Washington Post: How come liberal feminists like the ones who assaulted Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard never seem to pull that sort of stunt with the local imam? How come they don’t bust into the local mosque topless? There must be a reason. I wonder…
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to bed. It’s late, and I have an old friend from The Heritage Foundation I’m meeting for breakfast. Maybe the answer will come to me while I sleep.
Related: Ben Affleck is Batman, but he can’t even confront Bill Maher on Islam without almost crying
Either Bill Maher has been watching Dinesh D’Souza videos, or he has been playing Oregon Trail. Whatever the case, it seems as if something went off in his head because he’s finally acknowledging that there are an awful lot of people asking for an awful lot from the American taxpayer. Or perhaps Maher and D’Souza have the same accountant, and the guy explained the situation to each of them using the same wagon metaphor? Who knows.
The “Real Time” host used Friday night’s show to admit that Romney sorta-kinda had a valid point about America’s growing entitlement culture:
Maher: Okay, so basically what Mitt Romney was saying was, you know, “These spongers, these grifters, these people, I wouldn’t piss on them if their ass was on fire because they don’t pay in.” But it’s not really 47 percent. But I, here’s my question: It’s not zero percent either, takers. I mean, there are a lot of dirt bags in this country, and I think it’s somewhere in between 47 and zero. I think we should split the difference and say we have 23.5 percent dirt bags in America. I do. …
And here, listen to this about disability. People who take disability, who are on disability, in 1968 it was 51 to1, people on disability to people who worked. In 2001, not that long ago, it was 23 to 1. Now it’s 13 to 1, 13 people to one who are on disability. Now, of course, you know, some of that is real. We are an overworked, overstressed, polluted, ripped off and lied to people. So, I mean, obviously there are some people who really do have disabilities. But 13 to 1? You know, it just seems like there’s less people pulling the wagon and more people in the wagon, and at some point the wagon is going to break.
Compare the point Maher was making with Dinesh D’souza speaking to a group of college kids at Oregon State University in October, 2012:
Dinesh D’Souza: I’m simply saying that here we are as a country and for two centuries we’ve had people pulling the wagon. And we recognize, and I would agree, that there is a group of people — and you can disagree about how many — but I would say about 10 percent of people are weak and disadvantaged and need to sit in the wagon and need to have the rest of us pull that wagon. Again, you can disagree about how many people should pull the wagon, but that number [of people sitting in the cart] has been increasing considerably.
This is sort of what Romney was getting at. That at some point there are more people in the wagon than there are pulling. And then the people who are pulling begin to think, “Maybe I should stop pulling and get in the wagon. It’s kind of nicer in the wagon.” And what my criticism of Obama is, instead of saying: “Listen, I really want to thank the people who are pulling the wagon,” he goes, “The people who are pulling the wagon are greedy, selfish and materialistic, and the people sitting in the wagon are wonderful.” He is morally demonizing the wagon-pullers and championing the superior morality of the guys who are sitting int here. And all I’m saying is, this is an inverted morality. The guys who are actually contributing to help the disadvantaged, these are the sacrificial members of our society, and they’re the ones who deserve a little more credit.
Bill Maher is a conundrum. He’s dumb enough to publicly say that “socialism works,” but he is smart enough to identify some of the accounting problems exacerbated by its philosophical implementation. Given that, one must assume that his real problem is that he’s just dishonest. He knows what’s on the horizon. He knows that we are speeding toward that cliff. He knows that the great big debt-tower is going to come crashing down. He knows it’s all a matter of time, but because he wedded himself to a philosophy years ago, he now spends most of his time figuring out ways to obscure its failures. And like Darth Vader, somewhere deep down inside there’s still a piece of him that seeks to do the right thing, and from time to time he’ll say something that makes his droids squirm.
Think about it: Bill Maher, the guy who donated $1 million dollars to Obama’s SuperPAC (and all he got were higher taxes) is now on the same page as the guy who starred in 2016: Obama’s America. Classic.
Bill Maher fancies himself a funny guy. Personally, I think he’s a poor man’s George Carlin, an atheist without Carlin’s intellectual curiosity about the human condition or the polish that shines when someone truly loves their craft. Regardless, I watched the entirety of his Yahoo stand up routine, CrazyStupidPolitics because it’s important to never let yourself become isolated from differing points of view. I might not agree with George Carlin’s analysis of The Ten Commandments, but I know talent when I see it—and he had it. Maher? He’s just a bitter liberal guy who strings together pseudo-witty personal attacks on people he doesn’t like. He’s essentially made the same handful of jokes over and over again for the last decade (e.g., religious people are dumb, Republicans hate poor people and black people). And that’s fine. I eat the same thing for breakfast every morning and I never get tired of it, just like people who hate Sarah Palin never get tired of hearing the same jokes recycled from the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s just a shame I don’t get paid big bucks to eat raisin bread with peanut butter like certain comedians get paid to tell slightly different iterations of the same stale routine…but I digress.
What bothers me about Maher isn’t that he calls guys like me a “tea bagger” for the 100th time and still laughs at his own jokes—what bothers me is that he’s a liar. Let’s take Bill’s riff on the debt:
“The Republicans are the ones who ran up most of this debt. That’s just the facts. Fact in there! Hello! You can not get that fact in that Bush ran up the debt, even though it’s in numbers, black and white. Republicans when they’re in office, they act like drunken sailors. Nothing is paid for. As soon as they get voted out they’re like, “Oh my God, I blacked out. What happened? Who ran up all this debt? Who spent all this money, it has to stop right now!”
Since Bill likes black and white numbers I went to the Obama Administration’s 2013 Budget. The graph provided above, with Bill’s rolling head added as a bonus, shows the incredibly sharp slope our nation’s debt takes on the not-so-distant horizon, so much so that the comedian’s cranium get’s wedged between the debt and the percentage of American GDP it takes up. That’s not coming from me, the so-called racist conservative—that’s coming from the administration Bill Maher just donated 1 million dollars to through a SuperPac (those vehicles for influencing elections that Barack Obama was against until the money came rolling in). Entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—and now with Obamacare—are the primary drivers of our debt. FACT.
Don’t like charts, Bill? Neither did Timothy Geithner when Paul Ryan took him to the intellectual woodshed with the administration’s own numbers. How about the text from the Obama 2013 budget:
“Beyond 2022, however, the fiscal position gradually deteriorates mainly because of the aging of the population and the high continuing cost of the Government’s health programs. By 2030, the deficit is projected to be 4.5 percent of GDP, and by 2040 it is nearly 6 percent. The deficit continues to rise for the next 75 years, and the publicly-held debt is also projected to rise persistently relative to GDP (see Chart 5-1),” (Obama Administration 2013 Budget, emphasis added).
A good chuck of CrazyStupidPolitics is spent on making fun of Republicans for allegedly wanting to hurt poor people and minorities by curtailing spending. What Bill refuses to understand is that we’re broke. We’re dead broke. When you promise all sorts of goodies to people to win their votes on election day, eventually you run out of other people’s money or it becomes time to pay the bill. And when that happens to a nation of debtors you end up like Greece. Since America’s economy dwarfs Greece’s, think back to the old saying, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Get it? Bill Maher doesn’t. At one point he actually proposes raising taxes and cutting military spending as the answer to our problem. Again, Maher proves just how woefully out of his league he is when it comes to actually knowing the numbers. The White House’s OMB proves Maher is either a liar or an idiot. No amount of taxation can fill the canyon we’ve dug for ourselves:
Look how much the “Big Three” entitlement programs suck up in spending for the Fiscal Year 2012 budget. We only allot three Bill Maher’s for education, which might be why guys like him don’t understand that 58% of spending (and growing rapidly) constitutes entitlement programs. The dangers of the interest alone could take up another blog post…
In short, the very thing liberals want more of is the very thing that is going to bring the nation to its knees. Instead of honestly talking about it with the American people, entertainers like Bill Maher gin up hate, animosity, and anger.
Bill Maher is laughing all the way to the bank, but it’s his fans who aren’t going to think it’s funny when the economy crashes and burns. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some Demetri Martin to listen to.
Michael Moore was on Real Time with Bill Maher talking Obamcare, and while a negative multiplied by a negative is a positive in mathematics, it isn’t when it comes to bitter, angry socialists.
With that said, sometimes the unexpected happens, like neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light…or Michael Moore admitting that socialized medicine results in longer waits for common procedures:
Moore says the only “things you maybe have to wait for” are a knee replacement surgery or cataracts.
“Things that are not life-threatening,” Moore said on HBO’s “Real Time” with host Bill Maher. “The reason why you have to wait sometimes in those countries is they let everybody in the line. We make 50 million people out of the line so the line is shorter, so sometimes you have to wait as long. If you are a patriotic American, you want every American to be covered the same as you.
It’s actually a win for conservatives that we got Michael Moore of all people to finally admit that when you give someone a good or service for “free” (i.e., shouldering a third party with costs that exist no matter how badly you wish they would go away), they will use it differently than if they were personally connected with the process.
Now that Moore has been forced to acknowledge the economic reality of socialized medicine, he’s prone to saying ridiculous things like “only” knee replacement surgery or cataracts are beholden to supply and demand. Besides the flippant nature of his defense (try telling someone with chronic knee or hip pain to wait a year for relief), anyone who follows his logic will know he’s wrong.
And since Michael Moore seems to think that he alone gets to define what “Patriotic” Americans should want for their neighbors, I hate to break it to him: he’s wrong again.
I don’t want Americans to be covered “the same” as me. I want Americans to be covered the way they want to be covered. I want them to have choice. I want a young college graduate to have a plan that works for his lifestyle and his assessment of his overall health and I want the recent retiree to have the plan that works for her lifestyle and her health needs—each of which will have different overall costs.
I eat right. I exercise. I get adequate sleep. I don’t smoke and rarely drink. I should not have to pay for a massive health care plan, a one-size-fits all package that blankets the slovenly guy who wears a moo-moo. And neither should you. But Michael Moore tends to think otherwise…for reasons that might be closer to home than a respectable blog post can go into.
Note to overweight socialists: if you’re ever wondering what the wait lines are for jowl replacement surgery, ease your troubled midsection: If Herman Cain takes it all the way to the White House the stress will melt it right off!
It wasn’t too long ago that Janeane Garofalo was calling conservatism a “mental disorder.” Along comes a liberalism’s Anthony Weiner, who plans to get psychiatric help for whatever compels him to expose himself to online strangers, and whose fault is it? Republicans, of course! Someone needs to ask Janeane Garofalo what kind of liberal sex scandal would change her opinion of the man.
At what point did liberal feminists start supporting men who honor their wives by engaging in online sexual perversions with Las Vegas Blackjack dealers?
Janeane Garofalo: [There is a] distraction that’s created [by] media that is overly-obsessed with this stuff than doing their job.
Bill Maher: I want him to stay too, but I can not look at him now—whatever he is saying: “Medicare for all” — I’ve seen your d**k.
Janeane Garofalo: That’s not his fault! That’s not his fault! And you actually haven’t technically seen his…
Bill Maher: Oh yes we have.
Janeane Garofalo: It was in his underwear, right?
Bill Maher: No. No. The one THIS week.
Janeane Garofalo: Either way, that doesn’t…if the media and the hypocrite Republicans didn’t keep this going, pretending the American people wanted it, it wouldn’t be something you had to discuss.
Got that? Anthony Weiner (married man, mind you), has been following women on Twitter and social media platforms for the last six years. He sends them sexually explicit messages. He forwards them pictures of his weirdly-waxed naked body. He lies about it to his friends, family, his inner circle, and the media for a week. He tries to destroy the reputation of those who—accurately—reported on the story, and yet Janeane blames Republicans.
What Janeane is really trying to say is, if Andrew Breitbart didn’t exist the liberal media would have never picked up on the story, it wouldn’t have *cough* exploded, and the world would be a better place. After all, who cares about a Congressman who sends sexually explicit material from his office, or sets himself up for extortion and bribery with online strangers? Who cares about a Congressman who is willing to have his supporters attempt to destroy another man’s reputation (i.e. ,Breitbart), to cover up for his lies? Why do that when there are boxes of mundane Sarah Palin emails to rummage through?
How’s a washed-up comedian make a living? Easy: Become an apologist for the worst behavior your side of the political spectrum has to offer. There’s always a market selling denial to partisan hacks. Watch Real Time for a few weeks. I only catch clips to see the audience hoot and holler with Pavlovian certainty when Maher throws them a liberal Scooby Snack (I don’t have time to go to the zoo).
Behold: The kind of married Congressman Janeane Garafalo and liberal feminists will defend to the death if they have a ‘D’ next to their name. *WARNING, explicit content*