If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist. The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas. Have you not seen interviews of Palin especially? She's a train wreck, and that shouldn't be a debatable topic. This is coming from someone who would consider voting for a GOP candidate next year, but there's no way I'd consider either of them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact they're females. Their ideas are terrible, and even when they're called on things they say that are clearly wrong, they stand by it proudly. Utterly ridiculous.

And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that. The only thing I didn't appreciate is he's equating every religious person as that crazy when they're not.

Now, to address your point about sexism historically as related to religion, I don't care, and I don't think it's relevant. It is a part of fundamentalist christianity (and many other religions) to tell women they need to be submissive to their husbands or males in society today. Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

To Bill Maher, and anyone on the Sift who thinks he has ever had a 'point' in his life... A pile of bull$#!+ wouldn't want to watch 1 second of this show because it would be afraid of getting crap on itself.
Really, BM? Really? You want to sit there and lecture people of faith about tolerance and mysoginy when you yourself are the worst mysoginist on the planet when it comes to Palin, Bachman, or any other conservative female? This twit takes the word 'sleazebucket' to a whole new low. What a lying, hypocritical specimen.
In other words - a typical neolib.
And factually ignorant to boot in regard to religion. Waste of breath to get into it, but ascribing 'mysoginy' to only religions is a typical neolib attempt to apply the time-honored tradition of retroactive standards. Mysogyny wasn't some sort of Christian invention. Nor was it even 'refined' by Christians. It was just the cold, hard, ugly, unfair way HUMANS existed for thousands of years. Women were on the short end of the stick in any facet of ancient life you want to name. But neolibs just love to sniff their noses at past problems and pretend that they only existed in the Christian world. Just ignore the fact that Christians have been (and remain) some of the strongest, most effective, transitional, and heartfelt movers of WOMENS rights, positive race relations, and yes even fair treatment for gays too.
And I notice the videosift hasn't posted the video of BM and his gay neolib buddies having a nice little joke about how they want to rape Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman.
"Tolerance". PTUI! Maher is the last person on the face of the planet with any moral authority to talk about issues relating to tolerance.

To Bill Maher, and anyone on the Sift who thinks he has ever had a 'point' in his life... A pile of bull$#!+ wouldn't want to watch 1 second of this show because it would be afraid of getting crap on itself.

Really, BM? Really? You want to sit there and lecture people of faith about tolerance and mysoginy when you yourself are the worst mysoginist on the planet when it comes to Palin, Bachman, or any other conservative female? This twit takes the word 'sleazebucket' to a whole new low. What a lying, hypocritical specimen.

In other words - a typical neolib.

And factually ignorant to boot in regard to religion. Waste of breath to get into it, but ascribing 'mysoginy' to only religions is a typical neolib attempt to apply the time-honored tradition of retroactive standards. Mysogyny wasn't some sort of Christian invention. Nor was it even 'refined' by Christians. It was just the cold, hard, ugly, unfair way HUMANS existed for thousands of years. Women were on the short end of the stick in any facet of ancient life you want to name. But neolibs just love to sniff their noses at past problems and pretend that they only existed in the Christian world. Just ignore the fact that Christians have been (and remain) some of the strongest, most effective, transitional, and heartfelt movers of WOMENS rights, positive race relations, and yes even fair treatment for gays too.

And I notice the videosift hasn't posted the video of BM and his gay neolib buddies having a nice little joke about how they want to rape Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman.

"Tolerance". PTUI! Maher is the last person on the face of the planet with any moral authority to talk about issues relating to tolerance.

It's the new low-impact doggie walking exercise!

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Fox news hitting new lows?

No. That guy should be put in jail for fraud since he's selling a book about this bullshit.

what a load o' shit.... fox news hitting new lows every week.

That mentality... I'm lost for words. A new low. Huntingtons should have gone next door.

Hitting new lows....

Really? I don't think so. Between the zany, low-rent crowd, the stupid costumes, and the lame dialogue and jokes I thought this was pretty bad. Yes, Drew Carey is doing better, and good for him. This show just comes off as a cheap runner-up to The Price Is Right.

I would have pictured him with his own comedy show by now (a-la chappelle show). I never thought he was that funny, but apparently he has a huge fan base. Even that lame "Don't forget the lyrics" gameshow was a step-up from this.>> ^EmptyFriend:

seems like a pretty good gig for someone from a moderately successful improv comedy show. what else would you picture him doing? even drew carey has basically the same job now, albeit for a better show.

I'm glad that your cat is in a better place, but saddened that the Malibu International Film Festival has stooped to these new lows.

Just kidding man, you know I support your biz...when am I gonna be able to buy it? Can I get it on iTunes? Amazon.com? everythingisterrible.com? failblog.org?

I love it. A ZP video can't go by without the following comments:
Going soft are we?
Never liked these.
New low for yahtzee.
Are we all sick of yahtzee yet?
Wow not many votes here, guess we're done with him.

Come on guys, spin a new record. Do you expect his reviews to get funnier and funnier and funnier into infinity whereupon he'll explode in a guitar riffing crescendo? Things don't work like that.

Last week was one of my personal favourites.

@NetRunner: Those aren't my staples, but thanks for the straw men coupled with ad hominem. That's a new low for you. I beg you reread the comments again.

But to continue this trite belaboring, you pointed out that I went on a tangent, to which I replied (and I paraphrase for your reading comprehension level) maybe I should write my comments as something more linear with no deviations instead of as conversations with sidebars. Your reply to that was nonsensical, because I wasn't insinuating you wanted a sidebar, you big silly lummox.

Horse. Dead.

That said, everyone who thinks the solution to all our world's problems is more taxes and more regulations are morons who should be kept away from the levers of government, no matter what party they do or don't claim to be a part of. Why? Because they shouldn't be so immoral to believe a majority should have the right to steal and tell the minority what rights they do or do not have.

Look, bottom line is, know you as I do, I think morally (and ethically) your heart's in the right place, I just think you're myopic and objectively wrong on what effect your policy prescriptions are having and will continue to have. That aligns you with the Republicans I generally go after with a vicious glee -- they also do not understand what their policy prescriptions will do, because they, too, are blinded by power lust to be a majority putting the boot on the necks of the minority.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Rush Limbaugh Stoops To A New Low. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Hey clueless morans.. You do realize this is a SHOCK SITE (look it up) from the meatspin family of shock videos????

What kind of new lows has this site sunk to??

siliconpenis.com

"I can only hope that the Republicans are making such asses of themselves, are being so obviously obstructionist, that they are going to continue to distance themselves from the average American. And that can only be good for the Democratic Party."

Here's what I brilliantly said in another thread on this topic... It's so brilliant that I'll repeat it here.

But for people who are getting their panties in a bunch over the Republicans for this - all I can say is 'grow up'. For 8 years the Democrats attacked anything and everything GWB did. For 8 years Republicans attacked anything and everything Clinton did. For 12 years Democrats attacked anything/everything Reagan/Bush1 did. This is just how the game is played. To act like it is some sort of outrageous, 'new low' in politics is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Don't like it? Well - you bloody well better get used to it because Obama has at least 3.4 long year more of it. Being the President means you're eating a crap sandwich every day, and you have to do it with a smile on your face, whether it's fair or not. Deal with it.

"We have got to stop fighting and start discussing."

I have generally found that when a liberal says, "we need to stop fighting and start discussing" it typically means, "you conservatives should stop opposing us and just let us do whatever we want." Liberals didn't seem very interested in 'discussing' in the Bush years. In fact, for a long time the liberal watchword was that 'opposition is the new patriotism'. Now all of sudden they want the opposition to just shut up and go away. Doesn't work that way guys.