Bill Maher Complaining that Obama is not Liberal enough

[Khariz]

Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!
Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!
Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!
Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!

Wow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmSmj7TFrow&feature=player_embedded

Listen to him whine about how Obama isn't liberal enough.

[Geshron]

I'd rather listen to conservatives whine since you can't exactly please everyone when you're already accused of being "too liberal" as president. Especially by talentless idiots like Jon Voight.

[Back]

Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!
Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!
Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!
Youtube TITLE maybe NSFW!

Wow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmSmj7TFrow&feature=player_embedded

Listen to him whine about how Obama isn't liberal enough.

Not sure whats NSFW with this vid.

But clearly this is satire.

[Parkbandit]

Not sure whats NSFW with this vid.

But clearly this is satire.

The word "PUSSY" is in it.. you fucking pussy.

[Gan]

But clearly this is satire.


Eh. I’ve never been crazy about Maher. What I like about his program is that he has get. Meaning, he gets some rather high profile guests. Not only that, but guests with opposing viewpoints. When those kind of people all sit at the same table and talk... its the opposite of what you might expect. A completely rational and cordial discussion. (Though I think Maher panders to the late night crowd with his carefully constructed commentary on the obvious)

So his obvious picking on Obama was satire, or did it have "get"?

[Khariz]

Yeah...while his show is comprised of mainly satire, he had a clear "come to Jesus" moment about Obama there.

He was DEAD FUCKING SERIOUS that Obama hasn't been liberal enough, at least in those three areas he kept harping on. Cloaking your stance in sarcasm and "witty" banter doesn't take away from what said stance is.

[Warriorbird]

In general:

http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212

In specific:

He's had a number of criticisms of Obama. His conservative equivalents have had a number of criticisms of their party's representatives. Not really an OMG moment.

(He thinks the bank bailout and auto bailouts were ridiculous for another example... and he's made fun of Obama's Christianity.)

[Khariz]

In general:

http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212

In specific:

He's had a number of criticisms of Obama. His conservative equivalents have had a number of criticisms of their party's representatives. Not really an OMG moment.

(He thinks the bank bailout and auto bailouts were ridiculous for another example... and he's made fun of Obama's Christianity.)

No. You guys are missing the boat on this one.

I'm not talking about the general satirical content of his show-at-large, NOR in MOST of the clip presented.

I'm talking about when he effectively sets aside the satire and has a "No, but seriously, Obama isn't doing what I think he should be doing" moment. Bill Maher is a lunatic, whacked of his fucking mind uber-leftist (idealistically). He actually thinks Obama isn't being left ENOUGH in his administration.

I find that ironic considering the fact that Obama's administration has effectively taken over entire sectors of private business, with quite a few more on the horizon. I've never seen anything like this in my own lifetime and this dude is seriously QQing because Obama isn't left ENOUGH.

It amazes me.

[Warriorbird]

You missed the 'in general' followed by the 'in specific' where I agreed with you. Way to siege mentality.

;)

Maher also complained about the bailouts... so your Red Dawn scenario may not need to play out on his show yet. I highly doubt he's the 'FOR REELZ COMMUN1ST' you portray him as in your last post. He sure likes money.

[Khariz]

You missed the 'in general' followed by the 'in specific' where I agreed with you. Way to siege mentality.

;)

Maher also complained about the bailouts... so your Red Dawn scenario may not need to play out on his show yet. I highly doubt he's the 'FOR REELZ COMMUN1ST' you portray him as in your last post. He sure likes money.

Haha! I would say "good point", but...that's just one of those classic liberal dichotomies. They want their ideals/ideas/worldviews to apply to everyone (as long as everyone doesn't include them).

*Many celebrities REALLY DO think big money corporations are Evil because they make big profits . . . yet, they make 20 mil per picture and that's fine.

* Al Gore REALLY DOES care about the environment and thinks that we should reduce carbon emissions . . . yet, he flies everywhere in a private jet and burns more carbon than hundreds of us combined (oh and here's a preemptive STFU about carbon credits).

Shall I go on? I can probably come up with 50+ such examples of "This should apply to everyone but me" liberal antidotes for society. Health care should be the next big one on that I can spout this about. ROFL at Congressman waiting in line in their district for healthcare. ROFL at actors/actresses doing the same.

And as to my general stupidity in misunderstanding any previous posts, I offer a weak excuse: Studying for the Bar has fried my brain. I'm surprised I can think at all.

[Warriorbird]

They'll be paying for health care for the poor too (except they won't... because like you they'll avoid most of the taxes... they may very well hire you to help them.) They just make more money than you do while not outwardly hating on the poor and get loved for it. You (in general) hate them for that.

[Khariz]

They'll be paying for health care for the poor too (except they won't... because like you they'll avoid most of the taxes... they may very well hire you to help them.) They just make more money than you do while not outwardly hating on the poor and get loved for it. You (in general) hate them for that.

I hate who for what? Sorry, I'm confused now.

I don't hate anyone for anything that has anything to do with making money. Bravo to the celebs for getting paid out the ass to act. Bravo to Al Gore for getting paid to talk.

Hating on the poor? I don't get it. I don't give a shit about the poor. If that's the same as hating on them, so be it. I don't believe in being poor. Get off your ass and go make something of yourself (not you, the "poor"). Take advantage of the system we have already put in place. Between grants, loans and scholarships, there is no reason anyone cannot get an education and become part of the "working class" at a bare minimum. That's not hating...that's life.

I'm not here to subsidize people who refuse to participate in (objective) life. Federally speaking, it is my opinion that I should be paying for little else than our military. I should be paying for what little beyond the federal military that it takes to facilitate a bare minimum amount of oversight (for prevention of fraud and abuse) that the federal government should have in the exercise of their ENUMERATED powers under the constitution. I don't care to lose 30%+ of my income to social welfare programs, made up emanations and penumbras to the Constitution, and the exercise of the federal government pretending that they have general police powers (health, safety, welfare), which they commandeer via the commerce clause.

Shitting in my sandbox and then making me pay YOU to clean the shit out is...bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

We saw how well the Articles of Confederation worked...

[Khariz]

We saw how well the Articles of Confederation worked...

I don't see how that was a valid response to what I said.

I didn't propose reverting to being 50 separate entities. I didn't even suggest that ACTUAL interstate commerce shouldn't be regulated as such.

I said it is retarded that congress regulates EVERYTHING (read: health, safety, and welfare areas) that have NOTHING to do with interstate commerce except for what they pretend and make up about it.

U.S v. Lopez was the last sane commerce case I've ever heard of, and that was back in, what 1995?


Facts of the Case:
Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

Question:
Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion:
Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.

Bravo Supreme Court. Please review about a hundred thousand other statutes for the same reasons. K thx.

I think once I make some money, I'm just going to start finding ways to get standing under a bunch of statutes and starting trying to get them before the Supreme Court just for the hell of it.

[Warriorbird]

So... it all should just be unregulated?

Leave the regulating up to the states alone and you get the Articles of Confederation.

[Hulkein]

The Commerce Clause has been ridiculously stretched for too long. It will never go back to how limited in scope it should have been, but the Lopez case was a step in the right direction.

I hate Bill Maher even when he is mocking liberals. He is the worst.

[Warriorbird]

What's your idea for an alternative then?

[Khariz]

So... it all should just be unregulated?

Leave the regulating up to the states alone and you get the Articles of Confederation.

I have no problem with the fed regulating ACTUAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE as that is one of its enumerated powers.

I have a problem with the fed PRETENDING that health, safety, and welfare are INCLUDED in commerce and regulating those in ADDITION to commerce.

Like the Supreme Court stated in that case I quoted: "The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity."

The same can be said for at least half of what congress currently regulates. YES, the States should SOLELY regulate those things which ARE NOT commerce related (read: legitimately commerce related, and not some tangential bullshit).

[Warriorbird]

and as I stated earlier... that leaves you with pretty much the Articles of Confederation. Rather than getting a 'more effectual' America you get a fantastically less effectual America with constant turf wars. Think shoving everything into the Commerce clause is bad? Imagine the struggles related to justifying everything as NOT a part of the commerce clause. You end up with a vast degree of new factionalism and state to state disputes as well as frankly the states' piss poor record at doing a bunch of things for themselves.

[Back]

The word "PUSSY" is in it.. you fucking pussy.

Someone said PUSSY!!! Hide the kids!!!

Cunt.


So his obvious picking on Obama was satire, or did it have "get"?

Stalk much?


Yeah...while his show is comprised of mainly satire, he had a clear "come to Jesus" moment about Obama there.

He was DEAD FUCKING SERIOUS that Obama hasn't been liberal enough, at least in those three areas he kept harping on. Cloaking your stance in sarcasm and "witty" banter doesn't take away from what said stance is.

I think we’re all in consensus in thinking Maher is a douche, which is part of his gig, so your claim of him being the icon liberal having a “come to Jesus” point is exactly what it is supposed to be. A joke.

[Khariz]

I think we’re all in consensus in thinking Maher is a douche, which is part of his gig, so your claim of him being the icon liberal having a “come to Jesus” point is exactly what it is supposed to be. A joke.

Except that it wasn't.

When you cloak your personal beliefs in humor, satire, irony, and sarcasm, your idealism still hasn't changed.

[Khariz]

and as I stated earlier... that leaves you with pretty much the Articles of Confederation. Rather than getting a 'more effectual' America you get a fantastically less effectual America with constant turf wars. Think shoving everything into the Commerce clause is bad? Imagine the struggles related to justifying everything as NOT a part of the commerce clause. You end up with a vast degree of new factionalism and state to state disputes as well as frankly the states' piss poor record at doing a bunch of things for themselves.

Wow. You are so wrong.

What it "leaves you with" is a country that functions the way the Constitution contemplated it should.

I'm not going to sit here and give a full lecture on the Constitution. Our federal government is one of *enumerated* powers. It has only the powers granted to it under said Constitution. All other powers are RESERVED for the States EXPLICITLY.


10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States [Read: The Fed] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article I, Section 8 describes the powers delegated to the Fed. Regulate State health, safety, and welfare matters are not among those powers.

Should the Fed regulate shipping goods via trucks from one state to the other along the national roadways? Hell yes, as that is obviously commerce.

Should the Fed tell me that I can't plant wheat in my back yard for my own consumption? No, but it can (and does).

Note: I'm not talking about INDIRECT regulation. Take seat belt laws as a good example. There is no Federal seat belt law. The Fed does, however, withhold road funding to States that refuse to implement such laws. I have no problem with the Fed using Carrots to coerce the States into doing things if said States want free money. I do, however, have a problem with the Fed brandishing a Stick and telling States what they MUST do, when the power being used is not delegated to the Fed.

[Back]

Except that it wasn't.

When you cloak your personal beliefs in humor, satire, irony, and sarcasm, your idealism still hasn't changed.

Bill Maher is not the icon of liberalism. Nor the democrats, nor the left, nor the socialists, nor the communists, nor the whateveryouwanttocallthemists.

He is an entertainer. An inflammatory one at that.

[Khariz]

Bill Maher is not the icon of liberalism. Nor the democrats, nor the left, nor the socialists, nor the communists, nor the whateveryouwanttocallthemists.

He is an entertainer. An inflammatory one at that.

And I suppose you don't think Jon Stewart is liberal either, right?

[Fallen]

He is also a douche bag.

[Back]

And I suppose you don't think Jon Stewart is liberal either, right?

Another ratings grabber? All I know is that Stewert is funny. He could have voted for Bush for all I care.

They are both jews though... hmm...

[Khariz]

Another ratings grabber? All I know is that Stewert is funny. He could have voted for Bush for all I care.

They are both jews though... hmm...

Right.

Yes. They are funny. They make fun of everyone.

That has nothing to do with the fact that you can still take a peg, and put it on the political spectrum of their personal beliefs. It also doesn't change the fact that once in a while, they get frustrated and drop the character for a second to give you a peek inside. This happens even when they are in the middle of a scripted moment.

The only person that I can think of that is PURE satire, that I hardly ever, if ever, see through his veil, is Colbert. Now that dude is an AWESOME satirist. He's so fucking goofy that there's no way to tell what he personally thinks.

The same cannot be said for Maher and Stewart.

[Warriorbird]

Wow. You are so wrong.

What it "leaves you with" is a country that functions the way the Constitution contemplated it should.

I'm not going to sit here and give a full lecture on the Constitution. Our federal government is one of *enumerated* powers. It has only the powers granted to it under said Constitution. All other powers are RESERVED for the States EXPLICITLY.



Article I, Section 8 describes the powers delegated to the Fed. Regulate State health, safety, and welfare matters are not among those powers.

Should the Fed regulate shipping goods via trucks from one state to the other along the national roadways? Hell yes, as that is obviously commerce.

Should the Fed tell me that I can't plant wheat in my back yard for my own consumption? No, but it can (and does).

Note: I'm not talking about INDIRECT regulation. Take seat belt laws as a good example. There is no Federal seat belt law. The Fed does, however, withhold road funding to States that refuse to implement such laws. I have no problem with the Fed using Carrots to coerce the States into doing things if said States want free money. I do, however, have a problem with the Fed brandishing a Stick and telling States what they MUST do, when the power being used is not delegated to the Fed.

Me? So wrong?

Uhh...

First things first... I understand that you've never been a big fan of history... but I respect that you've had a fair amount of Con Law. Our Framers couldn't agree on Federalism vs Anti-Federalism per se to begin with. The 'uniform Framers' idea is pretty much a myth. The biggest proponent of the Anti-Federalist viewpoint, Jefferson, actually had a big reversal while he was President.

You're arguing against any Federal crime that isn't strictly economic. You're arguing against desegregation.

...and then you're in favor of cooperative Federalism?

Color you conflicting.

[Khariz]

Me? So wrong?

Uhh...

First things first... I understand that you've never been a big fan of history... but I respect that you've had a fair amount of Con Law. Our Framers couldn't agree on Federalism vs Anti-Federalism per se to begin with. The 'uniform Framers' idea is pretty much a myth. The biggest proponent of the Anti-Federalist viewpoint, Jefferson, actually had a big reversal while he was President.

You're arguing against any Federal crime that isn't strictly economic. You're arguing against desegregation.

...and then you're in favor of cooperative Federalism?

Color you conflicting.

There's no conflict in anything that I've said.

The federal government should regulate the things that the Constitution explicitly instructs them to regulate. (One of the Fed's enumerated powers is the Spending power. If it wants to regulate via Spending by using the Carrot approach, that is Constitutional).

The States should regulate the rest.

I've never deviated from that idea in the slightest way.

Edit: Oh, and just FYI, part of my Con Law study was reading the full Federalist and Anti-Federalist works and enduring a majority of a semester on nothing BUT history (which our professor cared more about than the random ideas of individual judges)...so yeah...spare me.

[Gan]

Stalk much?

Right, because I never post in a political folder...


Dont you love it when quotes come back to bite you in the ass?