Bill and Barry's Excellent Adventure

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. Any arguments such as the ones set forth in the below quotes will be dismissed and ignored as being irrelevant to this thread.

Heretic wrote:

It's still a lazy "well Maher did it too...", like a child who just got busted for something on the playground at recess.

Artie60438 wrote:

Whatever jokes Maher might have made they were directed at Public figures,usually after they said something crazy, and not a private citizen like Ms Fluke who simply wanted to express her views to a Congressional committee.
You and your ilk keep trying to defend that idiot while the rest of us will be just sitting back and enjoying watching you hurl yourselves off the cliff.

Artie60438 wrote:

What you and the rest of the lunatic right are doing, quite unsuccessfully I might add,is desperately trying to mitigate the damage done to your minister of propaganda by playing the old "What about that guy card" and trying to compare a stand-up comedian to a political commentator who is a professional shill for the Republican party.

edge540 wrote:

Facsinating how those same people have a blind eye now when it comes to a 30 year old female college law student- a private citizen.

Artie60438 wrote:

Exactly what was your point in bringing Bill Maher into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh if not to defend him?

Artie60438 wrote:

That is what's known as introducing a "mitigating factor". They are commonly used by defense lawyers to lessen the severity of a sentence or to reduce charges..

Artie60438 wrote:

Gee,look who else used the exact same tactic to defend Limbaugh as you did......

Artie60438 wrote:

....a blatant attempt to defend Limbaugh by playing the "he did it too" card.
"Little green Footballs" sums it up nicely....

Quote :

Meanwhile, the entire right wing has gone into full-throated “they did it too” deflection mode for Rush Limbaugh today. Infantile schoolyard politics, to defend the indefensible.

Now run along.

Scorpion wrote:

In any case, Ms. Fluke was personally attacked for her testimony before Congress. That's quite different from one radio host insulting another, don't you think?

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/bill-maher-major-obama-donor

Bill Maher, Major Obama Donor

Published: 3/3/2012 12:00 PM ET

By L. Brent Bozell III

HBO has made Bill Maher perhaps America’s nastiest talk show host. He’s also America’s most prominent, militant atheist. Now he’s made himself the most prominent million-dollar donor to Barack Obama’s super PAC, Priorities USA. He broke out a big check on stage in San Jose to advertise his magnanimous support.
A few days ago, NBC’s resident feminist Andrea Mitchell practically needed smelling salts when Santorum super-PAC backer Foster Friess repeated a very old (and equally innocent) joke about Bayer aspirin being used as birth control. This somehow became the Scandal of the Day for Rick Santorum. So why don’t Bill Maher’s “jokes” now blow back on Barack Obama?
Obama ascended to the White House on an alleged cloud of positive energy and bridge-building (if you forget all his campaign’s nasty commercials and just follow his press clips). Bill Maher is the opposite. He is the epitome of self-indulgent Hollywood liberalism, a man who shamelessly denounces the rest of America as a nation full of idiots.
But now they own each other. Maher wrote the check, Obama cashed it. Andrea (and everyone else), shouldn’t you be asking some questions in the interest of that lost journalism art – fairness?
Start with the ancient commentaries. Bill Maher is the man who used the Christopher Reeve riding-accident tragedy to rant against the cruelty of riding horses. This is the man who “joked” in 2000 that he hoped O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris, Florida’s Republican Secretary of State. This is the man dropped by ABC in 2001 for calling our fighter pilots “cowards,” while the 9-11 terrorists who died flying into a building full of innocent people were “not cowardly.”
Shouldn’t Team Obama send the million dollars back? Reject Maher – or own him.
There is Maher’s arrogant description of George W. Bush as a “retarded child emperor” and a “terrorist’s wet dream.” There’s his description of the Catholic Church as a “child-abusing religious cult” with a pope that “used to be a Nazi.” Catholics go to church every Sunday to fund the “Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.” The bigoted rants are endless. He even produced a documentary full of them.
Shouldn’t Team Obama send the million dollars back? If not, shouldn’t he be held accountable?
Maybe Obama does want ownership. Maybe he wants to start his general-election campaign by reminding all the conservatives that his million-dollar donors want them to die violent deaths. In addition to Katherine Harris, let’s review who Maher jokes should be dead.
There’s Rush Limbaugh: “Why couldn’t he have croaked from [OxyContin] instead of Heath Ledger? “
Dick Cheney when he was vice president: “I’m just saying if he did die, other people – more people would live. That’s a fact.”
Glenn Beck when he was a Fox News host: “When we see crazy, senseless deaths like this, we can only ask why, why, why couldn't it have been Glenn Beck?”
Sarah Palin: “Sarah Palin screaming about death panels? You know what, Sarah, if we were killing off useless people, you'd be the first to know.”
And Rush Limbaugh again: “Do it [repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] because it will make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter. Do it because it will make Sarah Palin ‘go rogue’ in her pants.”
Shouldn’t Team Obama send the million dollars back? Hello, MSNBC? CNN?
………
Perhaps we should hope Team Obama is too cocky to send Bill Maher’s million dollars back. These clips of Maher might make a nice super-PAC commercial against Obama. At which point you can expect (a) Obama will condemn the excesses of Big Money in politics, and (b) Maher will wish someone dead.

happy jack wrote:

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.

Has it dawned on you and the rest of the baying hounds on the right that the donation was not made to Obama. It was made to a Superpac?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

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.

Has it dawned on you and the rest of the baying hounds on the right that the donation was not made to Obama. It was made to a Superpac?

Yes, Artie, I'm aware of that.
I was working under the assumption that you might actually behave honestly for once and acknowledge who the main beneficiary of that super PAC might be.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/plouffe-appears-at-event-for-proobama-super-pac-which-117952.html
Plouffe appears at event for pro-Obama super PAC, which hires new fundraiserBy MAGGIE HABERMAN |
3/19/12 8:02 PM EDT

President Obama's adviser David Plouffe appeared at a prospecting meeting for Priorities USA Action held at the Yale Club in Manhattan earlier today, speaking before a group of about two dozen major Democratic donors about the influence of outside groups on the GOP side, multiple sources said.
The Plouffe appearance came as the group has been ratcheting up a push to fundraise after Obama, however reluctantly, gave his blessing to Democratic donors bundling for the super PAC supporting him ….


I guess I was asking too much, as honesty is clearly not your strong suit.
So, let me rephrase: Should Obama associate himself with and accept monetary support from the super PAC, seeing as how a very large portion of that money came from a major-league misogynist who is prone to mock the mentally challenged?

happy jack wrote:

So, let me rephrase: Should Obama associate himself with and accept monetary support from the super PAC, seeing as how a very large portion of that money came from a major-league misogynist who is prone to mock the mentally challenged?

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

I wish that these Super PACs weren't legal, but unfortunately, they are, at least for now.

IMHO, the argument that you're trying to make with this thread is really a stretch, Jack.

Same here. 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).

If they would cut out campaign donations, and super-pacs out all together, Obama and any of the other candidates couldn't hold water.

No campaign donations should "buy" a Presidency, or any public office. That's why we end up with idiots/brain-dead meats in office.

It angers me, that Maher isn't the only traitor or ignoramous donating to a piece of crap.

Heretic wrote:

Same here. 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).

Glad you brought this up,Heretic. It gives me the perfect opening to point out that L. Brent Bozell,the author of the article that Happy used to start beating the drum and make his case,once said President Obama "looks like a skinny ghetto crackhead".
Pot/kettle/black,anyone?

Scorpion wrote:

IMHO, the argument that you're trying to make with this thread is really a stretch, Jack.

Heretic wrote:

Same here.

Could you please show me what argument I am making ….

Heretic wrote:

…. your latest childish and poorly thought through screed.

…. or what “screed” I am engaging in?


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.

Heretic wrote:

But fine... what you said. I merely want everyone who could benefit from such donations to acknowledge the source of the money and to explain why they feel that it is appropriate for them to accept money from anyone who says offensive things in public. Note that "anyone" includes Maher, which means we're in 100% total agreement. Unless your objection is only to Maher, in which case you're succumbing to the same partisan hypocrisy you try so hard to condemn.

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

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.

Oh I see, that's what YOU want.
Why? What for? The president of the United States is supposed to jump after some conservative twit on a message board in Indiana wants him to?
He did not accept anything so why should he acknowledge or denounce anything? The money goes to a superpack that he has legally no control over. If he told the superpack what to do with the money he would be breaking the law.
Come on now, ya'll don't want the president of the United States to break the law do ya?

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

…. desperately trying to mitigate the damage done to your minister of propaganda by playing the old "What about that guy card" ….

Still can't get over my pointing out your foolish argument can you? You gonna make that quote part of your signature file too?.

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

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

…. desperately trying to mitigate the damage done to your minister of propaganda by playing the old "What about that guy card" ….

Still can't get over my pointing out your foolish argument can you? You gonna make that quote part of your signature file too?.

WTF are you babbling about now?