• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bill Maher on the teabaggers versus Founding Fathers.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
First said:
Maher is actually pretty abhorrently misinformed about quite a few things, including politics. But he's entirely accurate that by Tea Party standards the founding fathers wouldn't be regarded as highly today if they actually knew who they were and what they believed in. Tea Partiers like to think they believe in the Constitution as written, but they're just as bad as fringe liberals in terms of interpreting the Constitution the way they'd like to see it interpreted. The video isn't up anymore btw.
Click to expand...

Gotta love the 'centrist' false equivalency mandatory 'both sides are equally bad' lines.

If the tea party came out today saying he holocaust didn't happen, we'd hear from these 'centrists' that they were terrible revisionists, just like the liberal ones.

On Maher, I'm not the biggest fan, but I like his show for his guests. I think your criticism is exaggerated, though, as 'abhorrently misinformed'.
 
First said:
Maher is actually pretty abhorrently misinformed about quite a few things, including politics. But he's entirely accurate that by Tea Party standards the founding fathers wouldn't be regarded as highly today if they actually knew who they were and what they believed in. Tea Partiers like to think they believe in the Constitution as written, but they're just as bad as fringe liberals in terms of interpreting the Constitution the way they'd like to see it interpreted. The video isn't up anymore btw.
Click to expand...

But thats kind of the problem, there are true teabaggers and a lot of ill-informed followers. I bet if you did a survey with a question such as "Is Obama responsible for 50 percent or more of the current debt" it would be an over whelming yes. Most teaparty members don't know about the small tax break that was apart of the stimulus. Most didn't know about the debt added in by Bush because of the two wars and the tax break at the same time. Most don't know that the current speaker of the house was one that convinced republicans with a plea to vote for the TARP, which they disagreed with and actually pin on Obama even though it was during Bush. So I believe that the founders wouldn't think very highly of that group.
 
Craig234 said:
Gotta love the 'centrist' false equivalency mandatory 'both sides are equally bad' lines.

If the tea party came out today saying he holocaust didn't happen, we'd hear from these 'centrists' that they were terrible revisionists, just like the liberal ones.

On Maher, I'm not the biggest fan, but I like his show for his guests. I think your criticism is exaggerated, though, as 'abhorrently misinformed'.
Click to expand...

It's not false at all. You just happen to be on one of the sides and thus take offense. Given that extremists link their identity with their political views to a large extent, you have made yourself virtually incapable of admitting that you're wrong. And thus extremists tend to lead a rationalized stagnation of a life beating their heads against a wall while centrists tend to prosper.

IMO Bill Mahr is misinformed on many things and gets off on the shock value of his statements. This is fine, but he's an entertainer, not a political expert. Would be nice if he remembered that.

Bottom line, the far left has been around for a while, and now they're shocked that an equal and opposite radical right movement formed to mirror them. Go figure.
 
irishScott said:
It's not false at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. You can do nothing but post ignorant and false ideological sputtering.

The topic was the claim that the tea partiers who 'interpret' the constitution to mean what they want and don't know what it really says are equivalent to some group on the left who do the same things. That is a false equivalency, not an accurate one. Since you claim otherwise, why don't you prove the point, post some meat for your claim for once, since you do it for none, not just a tiny nibble of 'the left sometimes doesn't respect the 2nd amendment', but something that comes close to 'equivalency'.

95% of what is said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Yes, it is. You can do nothing but post ignorant and false ideological sputtering.

The topic was the claim that the tea partiers who 'interpret' the constitution to mean what they want and don't know what it really says are equivalent to some group on the left who do the same things. That is a false equivalency, not an accurate one. Since you claim otherwise, why don't you prove the point, post some meat for your claim for once, since you do it for none, not just a tiny nibble of 'the left sometimes doesn't respect the 2nd amendment', but something that comes close to 'equivalency'.

95% of what is said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.
Click to expand...

Oh the Ironing. And I love how you adapted one of your rivals's lines at the end. Can't come up with your own comebacks?

As for your challenge, well there's the "general welfare" clause for starters. Last I checked we have a whole thread on that. And "sometimes doesn't respect the 2nd amendment"? Lol the left's general view of the 2nd amendment is that it is meant for militias and thus obsolete. Which shows their willful dismissal of grammar.

Penn and Teller did a nice bit on the latter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
 
boomerang said:
It's rather amazing isn't it? A guy who earns his living as a comedian, who has extreme left political views and is so caught up in himself that he can't control himself from sharing them is lecturing the country on what's right and what's wrong. His views are as biased as they could possibly get.

Like we even give a shit.

On top of it, he's ANGRY about it all. Borderline ranting at times. He comes across as a pompous ass scolding us all because we aren't towing the line he presents as the righteous one. I tell ya, I just can't get enough of these Hollywood types telling us what fer.

Hey, I guess he is a comedian. I know I'm usually laughing at what he's saying.
Click to expand...

WAAAA! FAR LEFT! Umm, ANGRY! What did he actually say? I dunno goshdawnit! IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE ... umm.. the messenger is dumb!
 
keep the microphone in front of him and other regressives. He's doing a fine job hanging his own party.
 
MaherHeals.jpg
 
Tea baggers reading something into the constitution that isn't there? Thats never been done before... Except like the right wing with the Bible, US constitution, theory of evolution, Green Eggs and Ham, Debbie does Dallas, and every single book in the library. Need I go on?
Hey... if they don't like something, just delete, insert, then rearrange a few words... and SEE, WE TOLD YOU SO....

Sarah Palin thinks she can see Russia from her house because she still believes the world is flat.
I think she's called one of the "flat-ers".
 
Last edited:
irishScott said:
Oh the Ironing. And I love how you adapted one of your rivals's lines at the end. Can't come up with your own comebacks?
Click to expand...

Uh, IrishScott. When you are trying to refute the claim:

"You can do nothing but post ignorant and false ideological sputtering."

You should probably not 'ignorantly' and 'falsely' base the argument on attacking me for copying someone... who actually copied me.

To more substantively show the high rate of people who use straw men and misrepresent liberals as the basis for their argument, for months I've been saying that "95% of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies, and I can't remember the other 5%." Someone 'adapted' that for their own use.

But thanks for proving my point. I won't embarrass you more on the other points now.

But suffice it to say, when you are asked to provide evidence for a broad claim and specifically not to use something that falls short, the 2nd amendment opinions, you should probably not make the center of your case the very thing you were just told not to try to use for something it falls far short of.

And picking as your only other argument an item which has everything to do with your own opinion, and not the Supreme Court's interpretation you are at odds with...

Doesn't exactly prove your claim that the OTHER side are the ones 'interpreting' the constitution for their own ideology. You really proved my points.
 
Craig234 said:
editing
Click to expand...

I read your original message. You asked me to provide examples of the far left seeing what they wanted in the Constitution. I pointed out using the general welfare clause to justify universal health care and the false collectivist interpretation of the 2nd amendment that willfully defies the rules of grammar and common sense. If two examples isn't enough for you, then by all means continue to thread jerk. Writing an essay on the topic to satisfy your standards is a waste of my time.

And to be frank, there are very few people who could be embarrassed arguing with you craig. I'm not one of them. Go jerk off with Patranus.
 
irishScott said:
I read your original message.
Click to expand...

Same points, rephrased, up now.

You asked me to provide examples of the far left seeing what they wanted in the Constitution. I pointed out using the general welfare clause to justify universal health care and the false collectivist interpretation of the 2nd amendment that willfully defies the rules of grammar. If two examples isn't enough for you, then by all means continue to thread jerk. Frankly writing an essay on the topic to satisfy your standards is a waste of my time.

And to be frank, there are very few people who could be embarrassed arguing with you craig. I'm not one of them. Go jerk off with Patranus.
Click to expand...

Now let's see, on the issue of your attack:

Oh the Ironing. And I love how you adapted one of your rivals's lines at the end. Can't come up with your own comebacks?
Click to expand...

Shown you are completely wrong, your response was to...

A) As a conservative, take the 'personal responsibility' conservatives love to wrongly claim they believe in more than liberals

B) Apologize for the false attack

C) Learn from the mistake

D) Dodge the issue and not say a word.

D is the wrong answer, but it's yours, and the right one to prove my points correct.

You showed you cannot back up your broad claim. You can use the 'waste of your time to do so' line all you like, and it doesn't help you.

And using the 'general welfare clause' as your argument - one which the liberals use AS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT but which you disagree with...

Proves not your point against liberals but your OWN guilt of pushing your personal opinion and interpreting the constitution to fit it. Not that liberals did it.

As for your inability to be embarrassed by your errors, that speaks only of you, and not well.

I've been embarrassed occasionally by a mistake. People with decency, with standards, can be embarrassed by some mistakes. You say you can't.

You think that says something about me; it doesn't. But your 'waste of time' claim can be correct - you just have it in the wrong direction. We're likely done here.

You have proven all the points I made. No need to repeat the proof.
 
isnt a meme a guy who wears white gloves and never says anything?


oh forgot to mention he lives in an imaginary box 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top