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.

You know, it is interesting that he so freely acknowledges that experimentation may be a part of discovering sexuality... gotta wonder what he's experimented with...


As for the alegation that he only meant children, total bunk. He qualified his statement very clearly "we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures..." which I take to mean that the responsibility of a parent to educate a child is tantamount to the responsibility of the reigning authority to educate the citizens it governs.

Regardless, even if we were to take him at his word, referring to childrens' inquisitive nature as "Barbarian" isn't exactly great either... Not to mention that he was talking about children in the context of being sexually curious, so therefore it is pretty much the same thing...

Meh, I'm actually glad we have these total nutjobs. I feel it is actually good for the right wing to expose this shit now. One day they will divorce themselves from these types of people and we may actually get a viable candidate who is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I'd vote republican.

If there was nothing to bribe for, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And if you think making something illegal when billions of dollars are at stake, I refer you to the drug war. It is easier to bribe a couple thousand people than a 300million, capital hill will always be the place you want to go for getting your way in a centrally planned society.

But the idea of not being able to contribute to people who share your point of view sounds highly hostile to the very base of liberty. Banning "experts" in the field from serving on regulatory boards creates dumb, albit, less corrupt legislation. I wouldn't know the first thing about regulating manure, if I was forced by political pressures to pass manure legislation, the first place I would look is to insiders, which gets us exactly back to the place we tried to escape from with making ignorant people form legal guidelines we all must follow. Just imagine if everyone on the board of medicine hasn't practiced medicine in 10 years...how much in the world changes in 10 years, even more so in medicine.

I think your cure isn't a good one, but I would fully want to discuse a change to the understanding of what it means to be a corporation.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.

So you think bribery in government must be tolerated because you think that 3 specific laws on the topic is "a lot"?
You realize corporations are gonna buy a lot more laws than three, don't you? How much money will you have to put up to keep yourself "free" from them?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.


So you think bribery in government must be tolerated because you think that 3 specific laws on the topic is "a lot"?

You realize corporations are gonna buy a lot more laws than three, don't you? How much money will you have to put up to keep yourself "free" from them?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.


Exactly. That's the tell-tale sign of a central planner, isn't it?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...


Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The corporations that control our government...

Doesn't the government have most of the money and guns?

Guns yes, money no.
Are you saying you think this relationship runs the other way? That corporations are helplessly being forced to follow the dictates of a government that they have no voice in?
Government never...does exactly what they ask it to?

Money no? Money no? What? They own the friggin' printing press. They spend trillions and are running a huge deficit. No money?
Good day, sir!

Wait, so government having huge debt and deficits are proof that government has all the money?! I guess if someone's deep in debt, and getting deeper at an alarming rate, they're actually the richest man in the world!
How about the other question? Do you really think that corporations have no influence on regulation and laws? That most "government" regulation is independently crafted by legislators acting on their own volition? That most government regulation is detrimental to corporations?


That's exactly what I said, wasn't it? And not a word more. Oh no it wasn't. That's right, I forgot you liked to cherry pick.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.


I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).

As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.

Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.

But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The corporations that control our government...

Doesn't the government have most of the money and guns?

Guns yes, money no.
Are you saying you think this relationship runs the other way? That corporations are helplessly being forced to follow the dictates of a government that they have no voice in?
Government never...does exactly what they ask it to?

Money no? Money no? What? They own the friggin' printing press. They spend trillions and are running a huge deficit. No money?
Good day, sir!


Wait, so government having huge debt and deficits are proof that government has all the money?! I guess if someone's deep in debt, and getting deeper at an alarming rate, they're actually the richest man in the world!

How about the other question? Do you really think that corporations have no influence on regulation and laws? That most "government" regulation is independently crafted by legislators acting on their own volition? That most government regulation is detrimental to corporations?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The corporations that control our government...

Doesn't the government have most of the money and guns?

Guns yes, money no.
Are you saying you think this relationship runs the other way? That corporations are helplessly being forced to follow the dictates of a government that they have no voice in?
Government never...does exactly what they ask it to?


I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.

I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The corporations that control our government...

Doesn't the government have most of the money and guns?

Guns yes, money no.
Are you saying you think this relationship runs the other way? That corporations are helplessly being forced to follow the dictates of a government that they have no voice in?
Government never...does exactly what they ask it to?


Money no? Money no? What? They own the friggin' printing press. They spend trillions and are running a huge deficit. No money?

Good day, sir!

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The corporations that control our government...

Doesn't the government have most of the money and guns?


Guns yes, money no.

Are you saying you think this relationship runs the other way? That corporations are helplessly being forced to follow the dictates of a government that they have no voice in?

Government never...does exactly what they ask it to?

@ghark

Ok, so you are saying that Ron Paul is secretly working for the mainline Republican party? Interesting, I don't think he is doing a good job. Let us examine this. One, he has run as a third party candidate. This not only undermines the republican party entirely, logic dictates that his voter pool will come, by in large, from the republican pool... further undermining it.

And then you point out his voting record...the very evidence of him standing out against his party via decades of standing for his ideals. You twist that evidence to support a conclusion of indifference through effect. That, because what you are doing hasn't gotten the results you wanted, you have failed. In a certain since, this is true, but if it is the only fight you can fight, it is worth fighting for. That is an opinion of course, and one Dr. Paul obviously shares, as he has frequently said that he only ran for president because his pool of constituents said he should, he had no great desires to. Blaming Ron Paul for the 200 years of political development on capital hill is lunacy.

To me, it really seems like you have your heart set on hating Paul based in nothing, an irrational position based on emotion. If a man striving after his ideals for 20 years, never compromising, or throwing in the towel, and managing to come to moderate popularity against very entrenched powers working against you daily doesn't move you to sympathy, I don't know what will. Dennis Kucinich is such a man on the other side of the political equation from me, but I respect his purity. I don't understand how you can not. It seems sort of bigoted.

The reoccurring theme of your anger seems to be denoted at some of his comments on the oil spill. Here is a great interview of his giving his semi-support for Obama, like a true republican. He also talks about the moral hazard [government] created by totally dismissing the property rights of fisherman in the area, and the flaw of [government] limiting the liability of corporations responsible for the oil spill. From what I heard, he isn't defending BP anymore than he logically should for something that is, indeed, and accident. Do you think BP did the oil spill on purpose? Was this a plan by the Obama administration to have a great disaster to recover from.

His ideals have made HIM popular, not the republican mainstream. This is evident by republicans booing his victory in the CPAC during 2010 and 2011. While he might drive some to the republican party, they are people the main republican party doesn't like, he is causing a revolution within the party, changing the system from within. You asked how is this going to be fixed, this is how.

"If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!" - Robert Heinlein

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The corporations that control our government...


Doesn't the government have most of the money and guns?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I was going to give a long winded reply about how you are completely full of crap, but I decided against it. It is fairly obvious you have formed your opinion based in very little evidence. I don't think you will find many people that support your position that "Ron Paul does it for the votes". He has never been a mainstream candidate, never pandered, and usually the outcast even in his own party. So much so, that he has run as a 3rd party before, and railed against the 2 party system.
In otherwords, not to be rude, I think your full of shit. That your ideas on Dr. Paul are based on very fragmented bits. I understand your skepticism after Obama; but even people who hate Dr. Paul's politics here on the sift, like DT and Net, always say how they admire his integrity, and straight forward honesty. There are many snakes on capital hill, most people would agree that this is not one of them.
>> ^ghark:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^blankfist:
Again. Why is this man not president?

Watch a few of his interviews, he's as corrupt as the rest of them. He denied that the impact of the BP oil spill was significant and even played down direct evidence (tarballs) in one I saw. This is normal party politics, a few of them make speeches to get people on their side, but the voting never follows them - e.g the use of Weiner/Grayson by the Dems during the Healthcare "debate" to get people to think the Dems wanted a real healthcare bill - but all the while they get the numbers to vote with the lobbyists because that's where the money comes from for all of them.

So your accusing the man of normal party politics when we have this video showing him in direct opposition to his party politics....what was your point again?

You missed the point good sir, being in direct opposition when making a speech is completely irrelevant in pretty much all cases, because the votes are all that matters. I gave an example, perhaps read all of my post next time. The reason he is making the speech is pretty clear, it gets people to think that the two party system works because they have at least one person in the party they can side with. It's basically just a part of marketing the party to the public.
In case you hadn't noticed, there have been anti-war speeches like this for many many years, and what exactly has been done?
And of course, the best example of all - Obama - lots of great speeches to get people on his side, no action. It works because people have short memories.



I never said he does it for the votes, it's not really even about him, it's more about the party and how they can get people like you to believe in them because they have one or two seemingly upright candidates. As an example, go look up his Wiki, he's responsible for quite a significant amount of 'no' votes on what he deems are improper bills, that sounds great on paper, yet what difference is it going to make when ~95% of the party votes yes and bulldozers them through anyway. Look at your own example, you say he rails against the two party system - yet he's IN the two party system - you see what I mean? It's politics, if you can't see that then I'm sorry.

I think his stance on many issues is technically great, legalization of marijuana, stopping the war etc, but listen to, or read, his interviews - you find quotes like this:
"I mean, it’s a horrible accident, but it’s an accident. Do you think BP likes this kind of stuff? It’s not like they committed a criminal act".

Yea great, let BP destroy the environment through reckless malpractice, if you've spent any time researching the spill you would know it went far deeper than being a simple accident, he says he is for unlimited liability, then in the same breath defends the oil company for that disaster.

He is also against universal healthcare - he is also against the current system - but once again, with the two party system, how is it going to be fixed? Short answer - it isn't.

So my point is that some of his principles are great, some are awful, he takes fewer corporate donations than most of his colleagues - once again, great - but what difference is it going to make in the bigger picture while the current system is in place? The answer goes back to my original point - it gets people like you on board, and that is it; he can't, by himself, create significant improvements, even assuming that he wants to.