This is the single dumbest thing ever posted on the internet since Al Gore created it.

A few months ago on one of the Overtime segments of his show where Maher takes questions from the Internets, he was asked if someone put a gun to his head and he had to vote for one of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, who would he vote for. After making some jokes about it, Bill Maher answered: Jon Huntsman.

(Yeah, Huntsman stands virtually no chance of winning, but why Maher picked him is because he is probably the most reasonable person running for the Republican side in this election.)

Huntsman is EASILY the best Republican candidate out there, but it seems since Bush and later when Palin became a very rich star for doing basically nothing and having no real qualifications to be on the ticket, the Republican party is just a sideshow.

Obama is a disappointment, but it's funny that people still think any Republican could have fixed the mess Bush left by now. Hell, even in two terms. If anything, Obama has been too much like Bush. And you can't just ask would ANY Republican have done better, when the party only gave us McCain and Palin as alternatives. Many Republicans and right leaning independents weren't even happy with those two.

If Huntsman was leading, you'd all seize on all the magic underwear jokes Maher was making-the same one's made about Romney. He's a comedian. But I guarantee, after seeing Huntsman speak on Letterman, that if he were given the credit that he probably deserves, you'd hear a lot more reasonable discussion from people like Maher about the Republicans winning. Kind of how we felt, when in 2000, a much different McCain really seemed like a pretty good alternative to Gore.

The days of being able to have a good alternative seems gone now.

I don't care what Tebow says about G-d or what anyone tweets about it. I don't understand why people care that Maher likes to push the buttons of people who think there's a war on Christmas.

Maher bags on Obama all the time, usually followed by boos and the recurring "he's not your boyfriend" joke.

Yep. And it's still dumb for him or any other grown man to spend his time "tweeting".

Whoever came up with the name 'twitter' undoubtedly had a good sense of irony (and, besides being rich, has a good laugh at everybody who thinks the entire world wants to know every time they pass gas).

The comment wasn't just directed at Maher...it was meant for all twits. I would include in that group the other fad-lovers such as the people who brag about their 2-inch portable tv that requires a microscope for viewing.

Considering Maher's frequent use of the term, "bags" might be an unfortunate choice in this case.

So, what are your sister's rates?

[QUOTE=CRM114;11058324 That's because the delusion that he is winning (or losing) because of his devotion to Jesus Christ is equally absurd and comical. The punchline only works comedically when he loses. Surely you don't believe Tebow's success is divinely created?[/QUOTE]





While there are undoubtedly people who fall into the category, they're a tiny (but vocal) minority...no bigger than the militant atheists (such a as Maher) who are incensed any time a person experiencing success invokes religion publicly. The latter group's refusal to accept the possibility that a supernatural force could influence human actions is just as dogmatic as the groups they criticize.

And, yes, I do believe Tebow's success is divinely "created" (in the sense that a sovereign God providentially rules over all circumstances). Likewise, his four interceptions was "divinely created". Explanation below.

No, I don't think God pushed Marion Barber out of bounds, caused tacklers to miss Tebow, brought a divine gust of wind to lift Prater's kick 52 yards, etc. That doesn't mean that any of those things aren't possible and that God couldn't have done those things. It simply means that all circumstances are within God's control and nothing happens without his permission...even those things that we call evil, wicked, unjust, etc. That doesn't mean God is to be blamed or credited for each individual action we take (Hoorah! I just successfully got the mail and need to offer a prayer of thanksgiving!), but what Tebow does is to acknowledge that God has given him the opportunities to be where he is today. That doesn't mean that Tebow doesn't acknowledge his parents, coaches, teammates, friends, and other human beings who have influenced him & helped him.

Anyway, if I thought Maher was just poking fun at the extremists who want to use Tebow's wins as proof of direct divine intervention but disavow the negative efforts, I wouldn't have a problem. After viewing Maher over many years, I am absolutely convinced that Maher simply takes every opportunity to bash religion. I don't think he would ever consider bashing atheists or agnostics if their success was being attributed to their "unbelief" (as though they were being rewarded for their "logical" rejection of "superstition"...which is not an uncommon notion among nonbelievers. They simply substitute their own 'intellect' for a supernatural force when giving credit). Maher seems to be from a long line of haters who got their hands smacked with a ruler by a stern nun and who hasn't ever gotten over it. Maher comes from a mixed-religious background at home, but it seems that rather than increasing his tolerance for religion, it just increase his antagonism toward all religions (and his deliberate avoidance of mentioning any positive contributions of religion to society...you now, those evil things such as hospitals, charities, social justice movements, universities, etc.).

In other words, Maher can laud fellow popular atheists such as Hitchens, Carlin, etc. and wouldn't hesitate to attribute their success to their "rational" approach to life (including rejection of religion). However, Maher would never call their deaths or personal struggles a result of their unbelief...and would be highly offended if some religious extremist mocked atheists who were having problems.

And I still don't get why "comedians" get a pass for going out of their way to use offensive language and "push people's buttons". "That's their job" doesn't cut it. Aren't they still human beings? If your "job" depends upon your being deliberately offensive and provocative, what does that say about your chosen profession? The purpose of satire should be to get people to think or to be embarrassed by their position, etc. Maher doesn't appear to be interested in changing minds or improving situations. He loves to talk about "uncivil" speech in politics, but he doesn't hesitate to use the same tactics to "entertain"...

...which probably says more about the state of "comedy" or decent manners in today's culture than about Maher alone. Comedy used to be about amusing people by examining the human condition in a way that made us laugh at our own foibles. It didn't require being sledge-hammered over the head or 'shocked' (as in "I-can't-believe-he-actually-said-that") to be entertained.

Most of the best-known comedians (those who get their own HBO & Showtime specials, anyway) rely heavily on racist, misogynistic, scatological, graphically sexual "jokes" that appeal to the lowest type of intellect. Yes, Shakespeare often did the same...but it was sprinkled in sparingly amongst the philosophical gems. He didn't throw in the equivalent of fake vomit or dog poo every 30 seconds. It might be funny...at first...if Maher pulled down his pants and took a giant crap on stage. But is that really what most people want? If you like that sort of 'comedy', you ought to get a job at an insane asylum where you can hear constant swearing and witness frequent bowel movements. The class clowns could always count of the fake farts under the arms to get a laugh...but was that really original?

When I was young, I giggled at "dirty words" and my friends and I looked up "naughty words" in those old green school dictionaries during English class. I got over it when I grew up and moved on to more challenging fare.

I suppose if you consider Slim Jims to be gourmet food, then Maher is your cup of tea(bags). :wink:

Riiight. It's exactly the same thing.

Glad we agree. :wink:

The bigger question is: The Denver-KC Game or another episode of McLeod's Daughters?

Tebow just fumbled on KC's 11-yd. line, so Maher has another great opportunity to prove to all of his "followers" (some unintentional irony there) what a great comedian/humanitarian he is after he changes to a dry pair of drawers.

It sounds like you're more caught up in this Tebow thing than Bill Maher. Who would have thought that he could write one little line and make someone think about it for days on end? And it wasn't even an original joke.

This creekdipper guy sure is adorable.

All I know about Tebow is that his crappy performance screwed me out of winning my Fantasy Football league. Thanks for nothing, Tim.

Thanks, Newbie!

???? What line did Tebow write? ????

Re: Being "caught up"...if you watch Inside The NFL or read sports pages, you'd know that the KC-Denver game had several interesting stories going along with it. Besides the fact that a playoff spot was riding on the outcome if Denver won their game, there was the "Orton's revenge" factor and the "Tebow on the hot spot" factor.

Although hardly any of the above mattered in the end (Oakland lost, Orton didn't exactly set any records, and Tebow didn't provide any answers...if he hadn't fumbled on the 11 early in the game, Denver would have won), the 7-3 score was still more interesting than a blowout win. I had the game on in the background while on the computer, and glanced at it from time to time. I guess that means I was "caught up" in "this Tebow thing", so...guilty as charged.

I spent a lot more time reading about Rex Ryan's blubbering in the locker room after the Jets got bounced from the playoffs due to multiple team meltdowns, not the least was Santonio Holmes' apparent refusal to give any effort during the game which allegedly led to a couple of fights in the huddle & his benching during the game (notable due to his status as team captain and $45 million dollar contract). So I was actually "caught up" in the Jets thing and loved it. I always love it when blowhards "guarantee" Super Bowl wins & then don't even make the playoffs.

Re: Maher...don't know who thought about his 'tweet' for "days on end" unless it was bloggers who have to find something to write about. Maher's comment was entirely predictable: He loves to stick his nose (pun intended) into anything that will get him attention although he is predictably ignorant of the facts in most cases (i.e., when his research staff let him down). It's not Maher who irritates me so much as people who chortle uncontrollably at his inane comments which are slanted, biased, and often ignorant of the facts. Whenever Maher faces a real intellect in a neutral setting, they clean his clock and make him look like exactly what he is...a rather shallow, uneducated comic. George Will made him look like a stammering little boy with a few sly comments that directly challenged some outlandish untruths offered up as 'argumentation' by Maher...and Maher was immediately exposed for what he is.

My comments aren't for Maher...after all, he is simply what he is and will say/do whatever it takes to rake in the $...but for his fans who think he is anything other than a liberal version of Glen Beck or Limbaugh.

So you were just feigning confusion?

No, I was just being sarcastic due to my grumpiness over not being able to find Hell On Wheels in HD.

Feeling much better now that it's aired On Demand in HD. Great-looking show, by the way. Don't know about its ratings, but hope more people tune in.

Might get a ratings boost if Maher does a cameo in a wig as Big Nose Kate.

Are you inferring Barack Obama is "any old black guy" that has difficulty reading and writing or that he is as stupid as Sarah Palin? He's a pretty smart and capable dude. Not sure where you are going with this.

Why would he lie?

I'm not saying Obama is "any old black guy" and I'm not implying that he's stupid. I'm not a fan of his and don't think he's doing a good job, but I do not think he's stupid. For the record, I do not think W is stupid either. Both of them are quite intelligent, but neither were/are good presidents. Palin on the other hand...well...

My point was that the guy I was replying to (can't even remember who it was at this point) said that it didn't matter if Obama was qualified to be president. People were just happy that "a black guy" got elected. That blew my mind. Obama is not necessarily just any old black guy and obviously he can read and write quite well, but I took from his response that if an illiterate putz who couldn't even hold a job as a dog poop scooper got elected as president it wouldn't matter as long as he was black. Therefore people would be happy. I then asked the question if he felt the same way about a potential unqualified Asian or Hispanic president or a woman and finally asked the question if it would matter if Palin got elected when she obviously wasn't qualified...would it be ok and would people be happy simply because she's a woman and look past her lack of qualifications?

Personally I think the comment "it doesn't matter if he was qualified" is a slap in the face to Obama and any truly qualified black person that became president. It SHOULD matter if he/she is qualified. He/she should get elected based on qualifications and not on skin color. How anybody cannot think it matters if our president is qualified boggles my mind.

And remember that his own Vice-President proclaimed him to be "clean and articulate".

(Actually, Biden said that Obama was the FIRST African-American to be "articulate, bright, clean, and a pretty good-looking guy", so that REALLY sets him apart from the rest of his race in the eyes of leading Democrats.)

Sounds like Ol' Massa Biden was ready to bring his favorite field hand into the Big House.

President Obama was obviously so thrilled with the compliment that he brought Biden along.

I am really getting a kick out of you. Keep it up. This is quality entertainment for free.

Actually, Biden said Obama was the first MAINSTREAM African-American, while he was talking specifically about presidential candidates, not the public at large. So what he meant, poorly worded though it was, was that Obama was the first mainstream African-American candidate who was bright, and articulate, etc. Given that the most high-profile black candidates for president have been nonmainstream lightning rods for controversy like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun and Alan Keyes, he wasn't far off the mark.

Obama: Based in Chicago
Carol Mosley Braun: Based in Chicago
Jesse Jackson: Based in Chicago
Alan Keyes: Moved to Chicago (temporarily) to run against Obama for Senate

I'm going to check Al Sharpton's bio to see if maybe he was born in Chicago before moving to NY.

Leaders have to be careful when discussing things like race and religion. I think most people would agree Obama's the Will Smith of black political leaders. It's apropos that he's the most accepted by White America, while also accepted by Black America, given that he's half white.

BTW, Obama's Speech on Race Relations is one of the best speeches I've lived through. I spoke with many people of all races after that speech, and there was a lot of optimism out there. Some blacks were secretly willing to admit that whitey wasn't all bad and all-responsible for their lot. Some whites were secretly more willing to accept a black man who didn't think whitey was all bad.

I think that's the backdrop for Throwing Copper's original "almost didn't matter" statement. To put it on a much smaller scale, class president isn't elected by choosing the smartest person in the school. Rather, it's a person who embodies many different qualities people want in their leader. Obama was relatively green when he was elected president, but it "almost didn't matter" to his supporters because he was intelligent and seemed to embody the spirit, fairness, inclusiveness, and other qualities people want from a leader. I don't happen to feel he's lived up to that promise, and I had sincere doubts about his ability to do so from the beginning, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit he talked a very good game in those days. In fact, I miss that Obama.

BTW, did Obama really just sign legislation codifying the ability to indefinitely detain suspected combatants and other categorize of people without due process, perhaps even american citzens under some circumstances? I've tried to do a little reading up on this and I think I get the two sides. I get the "conservative" side that says, "We have to do what we have to do to protect our country." I get the "liberal" side that says, "If someone has done something wrong, prove it. Nobody should be able to decree in private that someone loses his freedom." What I don't get is Obama essentially siding with liberals, expressing reservations about the document, then signging it because "we wouldn't do that." We? What about the next president? And frankly, given that you've essentially continued most of the Bush-era policies and shown no backbone when it comes to supporting your supposed convictions, why should we even trust you?