Saturday, January 14, 2012

Michael Moore and Bill Maher Want to Party Like It's 2000 or 1860 ...

They're at it again, crawling from the woodwork with more and more frequency as the year barrels along toward Armageddon ... otherwise known as Election Day 2012.

This weekend, we've seen two of the more familiar faces return to our screens. If you were around in 2000, you certainly heard Michael Moore and Bill Maher proselytise about voting for Nader over Al Gore. After all, Gore was just so much like Bush.

Well, more cockroaches crawled back this weekend.

Moore, dressed like the lovechild of Our Gang's Spanky and a Franciscan friar, appeared on a forum on poverty hosted by fellow Obama-hater, Tavis "Obama-has-never-invited-me-to-the-White-House" Smiley.

For Smiley and Moore to presume to speak at a forum on poverty in America is about as oxymoronic as asking Goebbels to speak at a meeting of B'nai Brith. Poverty is a concept they follow with the slavishness of fashionistas; they are so far removed from poverty that they probably only have a vague memory of what it entails, if they have that at all.

Tavis, with his close corporate links with Walmart and his stint as a stooge for Wells Fargo's sub-prime mortgage venture interviewing Moore, man of the people who owns shares in Halliburton, Eli Lilley, Sunoco and Boeing, as well as a lakefront estate in a gated Michigan community, especially after Moore's little racist moment awhile back on The View, is just too precious.

To say Moore hates the President is an understatement. In fact, it's getting to the point that his hatred is becoming pathological. In better weather, when Moore appropriated the Occupy Wall Street movement as a front for him to pimp his latest book, he wasn't above warning all and sundry that it's probably not worth your while to vote in 2012.

But now that there's a whiff of hope that Uncle Ron Paul might be encouraged to mount a third party challenge, Saint Michael of the Deliberate Misinformation is trying another tack. He's warning the President - whom he refuses to address as "President" but rather "Obama" - that people are really, really, really, really so upset with him, that they are just so pissed off with the President, they just might "go somewhere else."

Where, precisely, one would ask? To the Republican party? To the likes of Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum? Or would they eschew voting altogether and spend the day in Starbucks or Subway, munching away their poutrage?

Although he doesn't say so, he implies that there will be a third party candidate, and Mikey (having learned the efficacy of coded subtlety) is implying that it might be mete for people to go the third party route again. Unsaid, that's a hope that Ron Paul will come forward, as he's the most obvious choice, but if not Paul, then Gary Johnson or Rocky Anderson or anyone who would glean enough votes away from the Democratic party to hand the keys to the White House to Willard or Newt. Then Mikey's sheeple would sit back on their ample haunches and blame the President for this defeat. Nyahhh nyahhh, I told ya so.

You can watch the video (and Michael's momkish attire) on Real Clear Politics website here, but please note the passive-aggressive tone he takes:-

"They're so desperate to be elected, that [it] is more powerful than the money than they're getting from these corporations is your vote. They can't win without your vote -- and don't let the Democrats and Barack Obama play that card of 'Well, where else are you going to go?' You know? They do not want to do that. They really don't want to do that because hey saw what happened in 2000. There's just enough pissed off people that will actually go somewhere else and can cause a huge ruckus as a result of that. So, they do not have to go back very far to think of an example of what happens when you punk on those who have less. Don't do that, President Obama and the Democratic party. Stand up now.

"Imagine Obama calling a press conference in the morning and going "I have decided that this year I am returning all the money I've received from Wall Street and I'm not taking one dime from Wall Street in this election right now." What do you think would happen? What do you would think would happen? Think about the support he would have. People right now -- how many in here went door to door and phone calls and everything in '08? Ask how many people can't wait to get back on the phone banks? It's not there."

If this sounds familiar, cast your mind back 12 years ago. Bush and Gore the same? Now, the Democrats are just like the Republicans? Obama is just like Bush?

I don't think so, but there are plenty enough fools who follow and believe the Progressives' equivalent of the GOP Klown Kar, and Moore has been at the wheel for sometime now. Obama-hatred amongst his ilk is as fierce as it's found amongst the Teabaggers; but the Teabaggers are less disingenuous. We know that when they talk about the President being a socialist or a communist or whatever, those are just code words for "black."

Well, language evolves. Thus, "the President is a tool of Wall Street," "he's an appeaser," "he's weak," "disappointing," whatever ... euphemisms for "black" as well. And Moore's sneering, whiny patronising tone doesn't help either.

And speaking of patronising ...

Bill Maher was back last night. Echoing Dana Loesch, a frequent guest on his program. You'll recall that this week, in light of the Pentagon's correct and adverse reaction to a group of Marines filmed pissing on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters, Loesch, who, although eminently unqualified, finds herself in the plum position of being a CNN contributor, blithely stated that she has no problem with American troops disrespecting the corpses of enemy combatants in this way. You can hear her rationale below:-

(Please, somebody, tell me ... what is this fixation with the American political media and these bimbo-voiced, bimbo-brained sorority sisters on both the Left and the Right? This is not Friday night in the Phi Mu House with the big boys from Sigma Chi outside chanting, "Rattle rattle rattle, here come the cattle," this is supposed to be intelligent punditry, people! Jeesh, the embarrassment!)

But I digress.

On the first show of his tenth season, with a panel consisting of David Frum, Rob Reiner and Democratic National Committee chairperson and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maher admitted easily that he absolutely had no problem with troops pissing on the corpses of the enemy, ending his pronouncement with the surmisal that "a dead body is just a fucking dead body."

Well, let's hope some of us are around to piss on Bill's bones when he's dead. You can see the discussion about this immediately at the beginning of the panel discussion on the video below, but stay with this, and around the 12:00 mark, something stupid this way comes ...

Actually, I'm wrong. The stupidity starts at the 9-minute mark, when Maher pushes the same old same old that Moore has been singing: That Obama is just like Bush - worse than Bush, Obama is just like Mussolini. There's more, when he chooses to embellish even further the lie that the NDAA is, in fact, just the "Indefinite Detention Act." I refuse, utterly refuse, to provide links yet again to responsible bloggers in a position to be able to explain the basics of this annual military budget and how this smaller bill got appended to it. I am grateful that not only Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but also David Frum, between 10:00 and 11:05 take the time to explain to Bill Maher exactly what this bill entailed, especially after Bill whined, "But he signed the bill, he signed the Indefinite Detention Bill."

Thank you Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz for telling the child at the grown-ups' table exactly what the bill was and for stressing that the President had added a signingn statement levering his interpretation of that particular section of the bill and how he intended to enforce this section, or not enforce it, as may be. And thank you for explaining to someone who on various days of the week presents himself as a political pundit but who is so cowardly and immature that he conveniently uses the comic's mask when the going gets tough over his irresponsible remarks. Signing statements are the stuff of history, and as David Frum remarks, Congress has given the President power to detain people indefinitely, but this President has chosen not to use that power. Maybe he should consider detaining Bill Maher indefinitely, because his propensity to propagate willful misinformation could have a disastrous effect on this country, judging from the number of people who hang on his very word.

By 11:30, the penny has dropped. It's the Ron Paul moment, and like everyone else of that particular ilk, Maher follows the radical chic fashion of bigging up Paul's foreign non-policy of dismantling the American "empire" and - as Reiner adds - allowing Bill to smoke his pot freely. A small price to pay for rescinding Roe v Wade, allowing Personhood legislation to be furthered, ridding the books of Social Security, Medicare and even the minimum wage ... It's very telling that a segment which began with Bill openly acknowledging a particularly gung ho and Republican alpha attitude towards enemy dead - and Bill'spersonal aversion to Islam is infamous - ends with David Frum's subtle calling out of Maher's own hypocrisy and ignorance.

Frum asks why a "Progressive" like Bill Maher embraces someone like Ron Paul, on the strength of Paul's wanting to bring the troops home and legalise drugs, and chooses to ignore Paul's odious domestic social policies? Frum draws an analogy to Rick Santorum, remarking that Santorum, alone, of all the GOP candidates, was willing to speak of growing social immobility, which is something about which Progressives express concern, yet they dismiss Santorum because his economic policies are distasteful.

And here's the rub ... Maher begins a litany of Santorum's sins - and they are real - about why Santorum deserves to be in the GOP Klown Car. Did you notice that every issue for which Maher abhors Santorum is an issue of Ron Paul's he's willing to ignore in favour of a legal spliff?

In one brief instant, not only the shallowness and insipidity of Bill Maher is exposed, but also the shallowness and insipidity of all of those from the Purotopian Left who genuinely believe Bill Maher is a Progressive and hang on his word as being the "truth."

People, this man is no Progressive. He isn't even liberal. And we know that he's been identified and called out as a racist by at least two Progressive journalists. All ye who follow the political punditry of Bill Maher, ye have been verily pwnd, deceived, ratfucked.

Remember this is the man who, as late as September 2011, was not only reckoning Willard Romney would win the 2012 election, he was implying that it really wasn't worth voting.

Believe the "truth" Bill Maher speaks at your own risk. Bill is neither intellectual, wise or politically astute. He is a lot of things, but his support for Ron Paul tells you, succinctly, what he is more than anything else. I don't have to say the word, but I'll direct readers, and Bill Maher, should he deign to read the rantings of a pleb, to Tim Wise's assessment of people like Maher, Progressives who give Ron Paul a bye because of their own selfish wedge issues. It's a fair warning:-

When you support or give credence to a candidate, you indirectly empower that candidate’s worldview and others who hold fast to it. So when you support or even substantively praise Ron Paul, you are empowering libertarianism, and its offshoots like Ayn Rand’s “greed is good” objectivism, and all those who believe in it. You are empowering the fans of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in which books they learn that altruism is immoral, and that only the self matters. You are empowering the reactionary, white supremacist, Social Darwinists of this culture, who believe — as does Ron Paul — that that Greensboro Woolworth’s was right, and that the police who dragged sit-in protesters off soda fountain stools for trespassing on a white man’s property were justified in doing so, and that the freedom of department store owners to refuse to let black people try on clothes in their dressing rooms was more sacrosanct than the right of black people to be treated like human beings.


That any liberal, progressive or leftist could waste so much as a kind word about someone as this is mind-boggling. There are not many litmus tests for being a progressive in good standing in this country, but one would think, if there were, that surely to God, civil rights would be one of them. It is one thing to disagree about the proper level of taxation, either on the wealthy or corporations: honest people can disagree about that, and for reasons that would still permit one to claim the mantle of liberalism or progressivism; so too with defense spending, drug policy, trade, education reform, energy policy, and any number of other things. But the notion that one can be a progressive, even merely liberal, while praising someone who believes that companies should be allowed to post “No Blacks Need Apply” signs if they wish, and that only the market should determine whether that kind of bigotry will stand, is so stupefying that it should render even the most cynical of us utterly bereft of words. It is, or should be, a deal-breaker among decent people.


In short, if you’re still disappointed in Barack Obama, it’s only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don’t take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy; or that America was meant to be a “robustly Christian” nation, but is being currently undermined by “secularists;” or who puts the term gay rights in quotation marks when he writes it, and believes states should be free to criminalize homosexual intercourse, and who is such a homophobe that he won’t even use the bathroom in a gay man’s house; or who has all but said that he would like to take America back to the early 1800s, in terms of the scope of government: a truly glorious time to be sure, if you were white, male and owned property.

Do you see now how dangerously stupid both these men are, and did you notice how Maher's audience, whom he, in a fit of puerile pique, proclaimed them "brainwashed liberals," were peculiarly silent when he emoted his Paulbot love?

People are clueing up on these assholes. They should be.


  1. Flint and Maher are just STUPID and ignorant. And it is WILLFUL ignorance.

  2. Gain immediate access to 16,000 woodworking plans.

    Teds Woodworking has more than 16,000 woodworking plans with STEP BY STEP instructions, sketches and diagrams to make each project simple and easy...