@chilaxe

Do you mean republican or non-partisan conservative? I'd say many latinos, blacks, asians, etc are conservative, but don't fold into the so-called conservative groups that have a fair amount of nativism present. I am fairly conservative on many issues, including being a fiscal conservative, but will never pull a lever for a Republican or a Conservative candidate.

I'd say that's the problem right there. The black and white thinking of someone much more on the conservative end of things than I think you are admitting to.

I've never said I wasn't conservative. I've said many times that I'm quite fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, and a constitutional constructionist. But I certainly do not ascribe to the kind of moral relativism where everyting is 'grey' and there is no right or wrong. If that makes me 'conservative' then so be it.

However, you didn't wait for them before opining.

This woman's story hit almost 2 weeks ago. I waited over a week before saying a peep, but when I did hear about it I tried to find out more data.

I think the main point was -- why do you need any facts at all about this woman?

Because in order to properly judge F&F you need to know the facts. F&F is guilty of nothing except judging the gal based on what data they had at the time. At the time, the reports were "this woman left her family and is shacking up with some OWS dude". They jumped the gun because they didn't have "the facts" and you are saying "why do we need any facts?" Uh - we need the fact so we can form a proper conclusion about her. Dur. If her family is cool with what she did - more power to her. If they aren't - then she is - in fact - a slimeball.

And you have soooo many opinions about her lack of character based on a few minutes of video.

If you read carefully, you'll note I've never stated my opinion about HER. I've always said, "if". If she did this... If her husband was... If. I have stated my opinions about what she did "IF". There's a difference.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'corporatism, greed, radicalism, fiscal consrvative, OWS' to 'corporatism, greed, radicalism, fiscal conservative, OWS' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm not a Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian constitutional constructionist.


You're a fucking idiot.

(Sorry that's all I can manage after reading this shit.)

I've seen the vids. The protests is a knut of very old radicals reliving their 'nam glory days, and a bunch of kids just there to feel like they've got a purpose. You've got Cornel, Fonda, Saranden, and other bozos getting people to chant anti-American revolution dogma. You've got these yahoos blocking traffic and sidewalks. It's called "Day of Rage".

A peaceful protest is one where you confine your demonstration to a place where you are not interfering with innocent citizens. The Wall Street yahoos are blocking both foot and road traffic, causing a disturbance, and being a public nuisance. When that happens - boom - the cops show up. When the cops show up in that situation, stuff like this happens. Duh. Protesting is fine - but don't be stupid about it.

And I'm not a Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian constitutional constructionist. Or - as I like to call it - a FiSCCaL. These protestors are angry at the wrong target. The Wall Street problems (and they are a problem) are merely a symptom of the greater issue. The problem is government which creates an environment of corruption and cronyism. Wall Street couldn't have done squat if government hadn't served up a bunch of exemptions, loopholes, and other shenanigans. Did companies WANT those things? Sure - but they can't HAVE them without a corrupt government. The solution is not to whine about Wall Street. The solution is to slap down government hard, reduce their power, and have simple tax reform like Cain's 9/9/9 plan (moving to a Fair Tax), and eliminate all the pork projects and government 'subsidies' of industry. Limit government and root out federal corruption and you create a system where Wall Street abuses can no longer exist because there is no 'system' for them to abuse.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Death penalty:
"The 775 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2008 had murdered at least 1591 people. That is an average of 2 victims per executed killer."
Liberals never quite get around to thinking about the victims of the convicted murderers on death row; not ONE of the latter has ever been proven innocent--posthumously or otherwise--since the 1950s.
"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
-- Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)


Irrelevant (and also wrong, but anyway). Leaving aside the questionable morality of state-sponsored revenge killing, it fails both as a tool for law enforcement and as a fiscally conservative policy. It costs way more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ron Paul Health Care: it was a loaded, piss-poor question and liberals know it. Why? Because there are two scenarios for the question. Is our theoretical 30-year-old living in "our" world where there is de facto socialist health care in the USA? I asked someone with a degree in Hospital Admin what would be his fate. Her answer: "If he has no insurance, his care is free."
OR is the scenario taking place in a libertarian free market health care world, which has NEVER been allowed to exist?
I gots no problems with liberal foolishness; it exists in abundance. What I despise is intellectual dishonesty and these crafted propagandist soundbites from the original source, not even the smarmy Liberalviewer, were just that.


It's a reasonable question. No, that world (thankfully) doesn't exist, but it's a world RP wants to create. We're entitled to know how his pie-in-the-sky bullshit would pan out in the real world.

And to hear a conservative complain about intellectual dishonesty and crafted soundbites is really the pot calling the kettle black.

The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing.

What you mistakenly blame on conservatives is actually caused by the increase in government and the centralization of power. Larger government in bed with industry results in crony capitalism that steers wealth to large government and large companies. This is not the conservative agenda. That is the LIBERAL agenda which is promulgated by both democrats and the GOP. Fiscal conservatives want nothing to do with it. That is what the Tea Party is all about. Do you want to improve income disparity? Join the Tea Party and elect more fiscal conservatives to pare down big government, and knee-cap the crony capitalism that results from it.

So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood.

First off – no one is killing in cold blood. That’s just your bias talking.

Second - Christ teaching people to avoid anger and revenge in their personal lives has nothing to do with capital punishment. A person can follow the turn the other cheek philosophy in their personal lives, and yet still support capital punishment for society’s guilty. Capital punishment isn’t about revenge. It is about justice.

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is BS and you know it. They are cheering for vengeance.

Who are you to say that? Are you a mind reader? Do you have psychic powers? Of course not. You’re just another biased neolib who is projecting your own anger and hatred onto other people. You say its BS. Well, could not someone else say it is “BS” to claim that neolibs are cheering ‘free choice’ when they applaud the murdering of innocent children? See how that works? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bleh - well he's right in one sense. No one in the GOP field so far is a candidate that anyone can really get behind. They're all pretty flawed in one way or another. They are either too liberal for fiscal conservatives (like Romney, Huntsman), are too conservative for moderate voters (Perry, Bachman) or are just plain kind of flaky (Ron Paul, Cain).

Regardless, whoever gets the GOP nominaton is going to get a huge "anyone but Obama" boost, but you can never put it past the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. My kingdom for just a plain-spoken, honest, fiscal conservative who isn't half a lunatic.

One thing bugs me though. This whole religion kick that the liberal press is harping on all of a sudden. Don't get me wrong - it's all fair game - but why are they going pedal to the metal on the candidates' religion over 14 months before the election? And why didn't they obsess with equal hand-wringing detail on Obama's crazy religion problems? Well - it is par for the course I guess but it sure gets tiresome. The press didn't bother to vet this bozo clown doofus of a CiC. Nice to know they can do their jobs as long as it involves targeting exclusively the GOP, I guess.

It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out.

Every time taxes are cut, it results in an increase in tax revenues because it increases personal wealth, which creates more tax payers, and establishes an environment that gives the private sector confidence. Carter’s 70% top marginal tax rates and leftist liberal policies brought the nation to fiscal collapse. Buffett has it 100% backwards. Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time. That’s why even OBAMA didn’t want to end the Bush tax cuts – because he himself admitted it would hurt the economy in December 2010. Neolibs like to ignore that particular bit of Obama rhetoric - but I do not forget such things...

Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

The problem is not that there isn’t a bigger tax category at the top. We’ve had a rate as high as 94% back in 1944. It was 70% under Carter. The problem is a labyrinthine tax code that people can game by moving money & assets around. We just need to simplify the code to eliminate the exemptions for businesses and the ‘money’ rich. There’s no need for a new, higher top marginal tax rate. The ‘rich’ already pay the bulk of our taxes.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity.

No. Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. That isn’t great praise, but it still makes him a better CiC than Bush2 or Obama. Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes. Clinton merely coasted along on the dot-com bubble. Oh, and also the Republican “Contact with America” was forced down Clinton’s throat. And he had a few impeachable offenses that prevented him from pushing more spending. The GOP cut spending, which created an environment friendly for the business community to create prosperity. You can thank fiscal conservatives for the 90s and early 00s – not Clinton.

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

Yes – cutting big-government social spending in favor of small-government freedom-oriented systems is seen as unpleasant, but it is the right thing to do.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80% … Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy?

I wryly notice that the actual QUESTION I posed remains stubbornly ignored. What would happen IF (!IF!) the tax rate at the top went to 70% ala Carter? Or 94% ala Roosevelt? Would the problems be solved? I think even the most dyed-in-the-wool neolib knows deep down in their reluctant-to-admit souls that high top marginal tax rates do not solve anything. Even a 100% tax rate does not come within 16.9 trillion (heh) miles of the real problem. Every thin dime of the new taxes would just vanish into a black hole, and the debt/deficit would not be touched except in name. We have precedence for this conclusion.

Tax hikes take place immediately, but the spending cuts are always pushed 10 years into the future where they disappear. Our tax rates are already high enough. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. The issue is the huge amount of SPENDING taking place.

I hope this simple explanation helps all the neolibs out… Our current debt is 16.9 trillion dollars.

1. A simple federal budget freeze on spending to current 2011 levels would cut our debt by 10 trillion in 10 years.
2. Increasing the top marginal tax rate to 100% would cut the debt by 2 trillion in 10 years

Simple freeze? 10 trillion. A ridiculous 100% tax rate? Only 2 trillion. Where does that tell you the real problem lies? Fussing with tax rates at the top is nothing but rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg is spending.

Look at Madoff, people knew for years that he was lying and scheming and stealing and nothing was done until absolutely no one could deny that he was. How do we expect people to act?

Now THAT is a much more fair and logical assessment than Russell's foolish brand of populism, or the typical neolib socialist rah-rah found on the Sift.

You're right. Citizens everywhere are angry when large companies, financial institutions, banks, or whatever other 'capitalist' source you care to name rakes in billions of dollars using shady, unethical tactics - but is able to skate away with only wrist slaps. Who isn't angry about stuff like that? I sure am. Contrary to what the average neolib may think - fiscal conservatives such as myself are not saying that 'big money' should not have to pay their fair share.

The problem is not the companies pulling these kinds of shenanigans though. The PROBLEM is that governments have an incestuous relationship with these big organizations, and are writing the laws (or ignoring them) in such a way as to create this tooth-gnashing dynamic. In the United States, the federal government's JOB (in fact its ONLY job) is to be a place where people can go to redress their grievences. Government is supposed to be the referree that only steps in the game when there is a foul - so to speak.

But that's not what happens in Britain, the US, or any of these other so-called 'social democracies'. What has happened is that the central governments in these nations have BECOME the 'big money' bad guys. The governments are the biggest providers of housing. The biggest providers of food. The biggest providers of money. The biggest providers of health care. The biggest providers of retirement. The biggest financial house. The biggest in just about everything. And yet at the same time they are the ones that write the laws that are supposed to be protecting the citizens from abuses. It is a huge conflict of interest.

The whole housing bubble was created not because banks suddenly came up with the brilliant idea of bundling mortgages into bigger deals to trade. It happened because the government repealed the LAW that prevented financial houses from doing that stuff. But why? Because government (Barney Frank) wanted UFFOWDUBBLE HOWSEING and wanted to use Freddie/Fannie to engineer it. But banks made no money loaning money to folks that couldn't afford a mortgage - so they came up with the whole bundling sceme to make it all work. Well - any idiot knew it couldn't last (except Frank of course) and pop goes the bubble. Where do the citizens go to 'redress their grievences'? The banks? They were ordered to make the bad loans by government? The government? You can't sue them. So the citizens get screwed, the banks have to be bailed out, and the government makes out like a bandit.

The answer is not bigger government and more taxes. The answer is smaller government, with limited powers and fewer responsibilities. And above all - government MUST be removed from the market equation. When government is both IN the market AND ALSO is in charge of picking the winners and losers - it will always pick itself. The perception of 'big money' getting away with crap only increases as government becomes stronger and stronger (as socialist governments always do).

Government must be 100% removed from the marketplace, and THEN it can serve its proper role as a recourse to appeal to for a redress of grievences and enforce proper restrictions on private organizations that engage in shenanigans.

One of the greatest modern myths is that Republicans are fiscally conservative and that Democrats are the wastrels.

Our debt ballooned under the Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing unabated through the two Bush presidencies largely due to a maniacal thirst for war and trickle down (voodoo) economics.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.
"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.
Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.


Yeah except when people look at their crappy paycheck they think "Hmmm do I want to eat this week or not get pregnant?"

See you QM actually made a point that makes sense in a fiscally conservative way...and with a lot of douchebaggery. Still you made a fucking argument with the facts on hand. My problem is the people who bypass the facts and an argument and just go to "NO...because God Says So!"

We're not even having the same discussion at that point...there's no give no talk there's just everything we do is fundamentally wrong and we're going to hell. That's amazing, people who make an argument like that should simply be ignored because they're clearly insane. Nobody knows where you go when you die.

Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.

Why don't the 'patriots' who attend these services ever stop and think 'If we are soo fiscally conservative then why aren't we offering these services for free?'.

I bet every time an answer of 'Ronald Regan' is given regardless of the question you get a partial credit.

LOL! I wasn't at work! Where in the heck did that come from?! It's called context! There's social context (black friend knew me, knows I'm not a racist, knows what the intent was when I said it, I wasn't at work, I wasn't around others who might misinterpret it), and then there's the context of the joke, which you can discern that I'm actually poking fun of society often assuming the black guy did it. I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work. I also know it's a bad idea to for example play solitaire at work, too. Does that mean solitaire is an evil thing? OF COURSE NOT! The only thing you're pointing out is a joke like that heard out of context could be misinterpreted as racist because it involves race. I could see my joke being misinterpreted had my friend not known me. I wouldn't walk into a group of people who didn't know me and say the same joke! For that matter, I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and debate economic theory either. Doesn't make debating economic theory wrong! LOL...

Your point is ridiculous in this case. Racism was very often *fought* by comics using similar tactics. Are you suggesting Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, Jon Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, all of them are racists?! It's ridiculous. Jon Stewart, who is ethnically part Jewish, makes jokes relating to Jewish stereotypes, so that makes him anti-semitic?! Kevin Smith made an entire movie making fun of Catholicism, and he's catholic. That makes him a Catholic hater?! There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

If you can't understand that, your brain can't understand context, and what is acceptable in various social situations. The joke I told to the people I told it to, when I told it made everyone laugh and offended no one, and that was entirely expected. In no way was it ever said or implied that blacks are inferior to whites whatsoever. It's therefore NOT RACIST!

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to. That's what Maher was railing about as sexist, and he's dead right about that. That's not as sexist as him telling her, "Go make me a sandwich!" But it is sexist that she had to do it simply because he told her to because he's the husband, and she's the wife. Unless of course, in their marriage, if she told him to go become a nurse, he also had to do it simply because she told him to. But once that happens, that's no longer "wives must be submissive to their husbands". That's "spouses must be submissive to each other". That's the difference.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.
A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.
I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.
That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.
OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.
If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!
Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.
Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.
Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.
Untrue and hyperbole.
Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.
No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.