Bill and Barry's Excellent Adventure

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I see Ted Nugent endorsed Mitt Romney.
Question:
Is it appropriate for Mittens to accept the endoresment without either acknowledging or denouncing Nugent's statements.?

What statements?

Quote :

In 2007 and 2008, during a period of years when he publicly speculated about running for governor of Michigan, Nugent singled out prominent Democratic politicians for violent or vulgar rhetoric or gestures. At a concert on August 21, 2007, Nugent made controversial comments about Democratic Party presidential aspirants Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and California's senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. He complained, "Obama's a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun." Referring to Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm (in office 2003-11), during performances he would frequently interject "Jennifer Granholm, kiss my ass" into his songs, and shoot an arrow at her likeness. In a 2007 interview, in discussing running for governor of Michigan, he stated that Granholm "is not doing an ugly job, but as the perfect woman, she is scrotumless".
...“Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch.” Since I’m in California, I’m gonna find Barbara Boxer she might wanna suck on my machine guns. Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore."

So...
Is it appropriate for Mittens to accept the endorsement without either acknowledging or denouncing Nugent's statements.?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I see Ted Nugent endorsed Mitt Romney.
Question:
Is it appropriate for Mittens to accept the endoresment without either acknowledging or denouncing Nugent's statements.?

[b]What statements?

Google too complicated for you?
NRA Spokesman Ted Nugent's Top 10 Inflammatory Comments

Quote :

4. Hillary Clinton Is A "Toxic Cunt" And "Two-Bit Whore For Fidel Castro." In a 1994 interview with Denver, Colorado music magazine Westwood, Nugent said of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton: "You probably can't use the term `toxic cunt' in your magazine, but that's what she is. Her very existence insults the spirit of individualism in this country. This bitch is nothing but a two-bit whore for Fidel Castro."

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

So... wait... You don't want Obama to return the money?

First of all –What money? Apparently, Scorpion is operating under the delusion that Obama will in no way, shape, or form benefit from this money.

Scorpion wrote:

Just for the record, Obama cannot "accept monetary support" from a Super PAC.

No. That's not what I said.

I said that Obama cannot accept money from the Super PAC, and that's undeniably true. Will he benefit from ads that the Super PAC runs? Probably.

happy jack wrote:

Second of all, I never said that I wanted Obama to return the money. I merely want him to acknowledge the source of the money and to explain why he feels that it is appropriate for him to accept money from someone who publicly savages women and ridicules retarded children.

Yeah, well according to the wacked out election rules that were spawned after the Citizens United case, a candidate can't have anything at all to do with funds in a Super PAC. If you'll recall, there is a limit to how much an individual can contribute directly to a candidate, or to a PAC that is directly associated with a candidate.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

Super PACs are a different entity entirely. There are no limits, and the Super PAC cannot give money to a candidate. Of course, they can run all the ads that they want supporting their chosen candidate.

Should Super PACs be allowed to exist? Not in my humble opinion.

The real issue here is that Super PACs are making a mockery of the system. This is exactly the situation that many of us who were appalled by the Citizens United decision were concerned about when the Supremes decided that there should be no limits on how much money can be raised by "outside groups."

This decision was hailed by the GOP because of the perceived advantage that would be gained by the ruling. The Democrats are more than willing to pass legislation that would overturn the decision.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/182729-house-dems-push-bill-to-overturn-citizens-united-ruling

So to recap, Maher has given money to an "outside group," not Obama. Obama can't "give the money back" because he never accepted it in the first place and has no control over how the Super PAC handles its finances.

happy jack wrote:

As far as I can see, I merely posed a question at the onset of this thread …

happy jack wrote:

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with Limbaugh; the topic concerns Bill Maher’s prior statements and whether it is appropriate for Obama to accept his $1,000,000 donation without either acknowledging or denouncing Maher’s statements.

… that everyone thus far had refused to answer.

BZZZZZZTT!!!!
Sorry, wrong answer. Try again.

I wrote:

But I'll fully support Happy's campaign to force SuperPACs to return the money from any and all donors who have ever said anything offensive, public or private, about a specific individual, race, gender, political party, or sexual orientation (and anything else I might be forgetting).

I said at the very beginning the appropriate move would be to return the money from such a misogynist rather than just offering meaningless apologetics for taking the money. My only mistake was assuming you were taking it that far, too, ...

happy jack wrote:

No, my objection is not only to Maher.
Where did you come up with that one?

... but because my objection included Maher and others like him, I got "buzzed" ... repeatedly ... despite our being nearly in agreement. But it's okay. You were obviously way too excited over a thread to you put a lot of work into. Glad to see you've calmed down enough to actually discuss the issue.

Oh, don't sell yourself short. We know you worked really, really hard on this one. "Oh, I totally got them now! Squee!!" Still didn't make must sense... but, hey... baby steps.

Heretic wrote:

Oh, don't sell yourself short. We know you worked really, really hard on this one.

Yes, I invested the same amount of Herculean effort in starting this thread as I did in typing this sentence.
Excuse me, but I must go rest a while.
Exhaustion, y'know.

happy jack wrote:

No, actually. If it was me, I would denounce the statements and distance myself from them immediately. I think that would be the smart and appropriate thing to do.

Then in other words you're telling us that the GOP nominee for president, Mitt Romney is not too smart and is not doing the appropriate thing.
IMO, I think it would be silly to respond to Nugent given the fact that he's a washed up rocker-entertainer. However Rush Limbaugh is a different story, he's the leader of the GOP and poor Mittens was afraid to cross Boss Limbaugh.
Big mistake.

HBO Renews ‘Real Time With Bill Maher’ For Two More Seasons

Quote :

Bill Maher‘s HBO series is sticking around not only for the upcoming presidential election but also for the following mid-term one. The pay cable network has signed a new three-year deal with Maher. As part of that, HBO has renewed Real Time With Bill Maher for 11th and 12th cycles. The pickup will keep the talk show on the network through 2014. “Bill Maher’s irreverent wit and fearless insights make him the perfect observer for these unpredictable times,” said HBO programming president Michael Lombardo. The renewal also will give Maher more shots at the oh-so-elusive first Emmy Award for the show after 27 nominations and zero wins to date. In its current 10th season, Real Time averages 4.1 million viewers per episode in gross audience, the highest for the series in three years, which is understandable given the fact we are in an election year. Real Time is executive produced by Maher, Scott Carter, Sheila Griffiths, Brad Grey, Marc Gurvitz and Billy Martin.