Bill Maher
Pardon my language folks, but the very sound of this man's voice makes me want to projectile vomit.
It's not illegal to have an opinion. But neither is it illegal to be a complete and utter moron. If this is what passes for enlightened thinking on the Left, then let's hope the Left is quickly relegated to defunctory status-- the sooner the better. I'm not sure how much more idiocy I can continue to take from men like Maher. I think I'd rather gouge out my ears than have to listen to the likes of this buffoon. Praise God the Left was dealt that embarrassing defeat last November.
This man isn't going to like hell one bit.
9 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the reasons the shooting in Tucson was so deadly was because the killer had access to an expanded clip of ammunition. In fact he was brought down when he paused to reload. But no one is debating the merits or proposing new regulations to expanded clips.
Bill Maher is a liberal pundit. You don't like liberals. This overreaction of anger is unbecoming someone intelligent as you. Engage the ideas behind the demagoguery, that's what I have to do with conservatives.
I can't say the same for the content. I'm allowed my opinion too.
But let's look at his "ideas", as Ben so quaintly puts it:
There have been an incredibly massive amount of examples illustrating the lie that the right-wing is more neanderthal in both their rhetoric and their actions, since this event occurred. Maher and all the many and sundry lib pundits are a collection of ignorant and willfully lying examples of that which they accuse their opponents. He "hates" Gingrich. He hated Bush 43 before the 2000 campaign was finished. The worst one hears from the average right-wing pundit (with the exception of perhaps Savage) is that they might hate what a lib is doing or promoting.
Clip size. Who is Bill Maher to decide what another citizen determines is an appropriate clip size for their weapon? Who are the anti-gun nuts to determine just how another person chooses to defend himself? Libs and anti-gun nuts never even look to see what concealed carry states can prove about the value of their policies. They simply rant about stupid unproven BS about arming drunks or having shoot outs, and assume that the average gun owner doesn't take the time to train with his weapon.
That the killer had access to any weapon is a symptom of other issues that were overlooked and ignored, like the indications that he was unhinged, which we have heard from several sources.
But to the left, it's far better to disarm and interfere with the freedom of the law-abiding in their vain attempts to prevent the unforeseen and unexpected.
BTW. I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan myself, though I watch him with varied regularity. There is no comparison between he and this shit-for-brains Maher. O'Reilly actually deals in facts. Maher just craps out his mouth in typical liberal style, replacing reasoned opinion with emotion-based rhetoric.
I frankly don't see how he ever got face time on TV. He's not funny. He's not intelligent. He postures then pukes and because he vitriol is aimed at the right, he's given a forum. I can't believe even lefties can stomach him, but then I think of Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, and a host of classless other lefty celebs, pundits and politicians and he's merely the worst by degrees.
He's one guy I would love one round with. I consider him a difficult test of my Christian beliefs.
David Corn:On his radio show, Limbaugh declared,
What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim....That smiling mug shot--this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."
Limbaugh was suggesting--no, make that stating as a fact--that the Democrats want to help Jared Lee Loughner escape full justice for allegedly murdering six people (including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl) and attempting to kill Giffords, a Democrat quite popular within her party. What could Limbaugh be thinking?
"Clip size. Who is Bill Maher to decide what another citizen determines is an appropriate clip size for their weapon? Who are the anti-gun nuts to determine just how another person chooses to defend himself?"
Because we already limit clip sizes and availability of guns. Ordinary citizens can't own a gatling gun or a fully automatic weapon.
Joe Zamudio, one of the heroes from Saturday's massacre. As you've likely heard, Zamudio was in a nearby store when he heard gunshots. He took his own gun, clicked off the safety, and advanced towards the gunman.
When he got to the scene, Zamudio saw a man holding a gun and shouted at him to drop his weapon. Indeed, Zamudio very nearly shot the man holding the gun.
The man Zamudio saw, however, wasn't Jared Lee Loughner; it was the man who'd wrestled the gun away from Jared Lee Loughner.
"That the killer had access to any weapon is a symptom of other issues that were overlooked and ignored, like the indications that he was unhinged, which we have heard from several sources. "
So do you support more intrusive background checks for gun purchasers? longer wait-periods? evaluations by law enforcement?
What Limbaugh said did not rise to the same libelous level as the likes of MSNBC, CBS, ABC or CNN, to say nothing of the New York Times, et al. The Left DID blame conservative figures for Loughner's crime, and they're still doing it. Even admitting to media that he had no proof of what he was saying the Sheriff of Pima County still leveled blame at conservative rhetoric and conservative talk radio. Have you listened to liberal talk radio lately? Or liberal pundits and celebrities? Talk about hypocrisy! The left have been dining gluttonously on it long before last Saturday. Years before.
And finally, the issue isn't clip-size or gun control. The issue is one apolitical lunatic and a despicable media seeking to lay blame everywhere but at said lunatic's feet. A lunatic, I might add, that had his sights on Miss Giffords long before Sarah Palin hit the national stage as McCain's running mate.
I haven't said one word about Sarah Palin. That's a bee up your bonnet.
The question is does this event highlight a need for protection from future apolitical madmen? Jared Lee Loughner was stopped when he had to reload his gun. If he was limited to standard magazine then fewer people might be dead or injured.
Like all other anti-gun proponents, you're determining the rights of the law-abiding by the actions of the law-breakers and lunatics. What fear should anyone have of a law-abiding citizen with his own nuclear weapon (a hyperbolic exaggeration to be sure)? No fear whatsoever because a law-abiding citizen is responsible. The same applies to more practical weapons that the average person might choose to own, including fully automatic weapons with large clips.
"Indeed, Zamudio very nearly shot the man holding the gun."
Worse hyperbole that what I used above. The salient point is that he didn't shoot the man holding the gun. Did Zamudio use the words "nearly shot" and if so, did he mean he fired but missed? Did he mean he squeezed the trigger but the gun misfired? Or did it mean that he was prepared to shoot the perpetrator of the crime until he saw that the man holding the gun wasn't the perp?
"Because we already limit clip sizes and availability of guns."
Unconstitutionally, though clip size is not limited since the expiration of the Brady Bill, from what I understand. (A Dem has, since this tragedy, submitted a bill to again outlaw larger capacity clips.)
"So do you support more intrusive background checks for gun purchasers? longer wait-periods? evaluations by law enforcement?"
No. I support more reasonable ways of determining and committing unstable citizens so that they can be helped or restricted from the general population. I support fewer controls on access to weapons for the law-abiding citizen in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty. I want the law-abiding to left alone to determine just how to protect themselves because it's their God-given right to do so, not the gov't's place to allow it or not.
And, additionally, I have no doubt the same could be said of Bent.
It's fun until someone loses an eye, isn't it, Bent?