Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 12:38 Post subject:
Let's see Maher fill Yankee Stadium to the brim like the Pope. Let's see Maher fill any arena around the world like the Pope can. Maher is a smug little man.
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 16:37 Post subject: Re: FireBillMaher.Com For Catholics To Express Outrage
Bischoff wrote:
Any Catholics posters here offended by Bill Maher's comments about Catholicism and the Pope?
Wasn't he the fellow who said that the true heroes of 911 were the hijackers, since they gave their lives for what they believed in? Who cares what this insect thinks?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 17:39 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Wasn't he the fellow who said that the true heroes of 911 were the hijackers, since they gave their lives for what they believed in? Who cares what this insect thinks?
Yup, that's him. He said something along those lines. He's an arrogant jerk, IMO.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 17:52 Post subject:
More on what this slime ball has said about Catholics:
Quote:
If Don Imus could be fired for offensive racial remarks, Bill Maher certainly deserves discipline from his employer for bashing Christians, including his description of a Catholic Mass as graphic homosexual acts, charge media watchers.
Explicit sexual mockery of Scripture and Catholic theology on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" should be addressed by parent company Time-Warner, say Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center, and Robert Knight, director of the MRC's Culture and Media Institute.
Maher's comments began with a verbal assault on Jerry Falwell three days after the Baptist minister's death May 15 then "escalated into a vicious attack on Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular," MRC says.
Maher said, "'We weren't having sex, officer, I was performing a very private Mass, here in my car. I was letting my rod and staff comfort him. Take this and eat of it, for this is my roommate Barry. … And for all those who believe there is a special place for you in Kevin."
Bozell said Time-Warner "needs to hold Maher accountable for his despicable remarks."
"We're asking, 'Are you okay with what he said? If not, what are you going to do about it?'" he said.
Bozell noted his friend Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, has documented a pattern, calling Maher "a serial anti-Catholic bigot."
Knight acknowledged Maher is "entitled to his vile views, but he's not entitled to an endless ride on the airwaves courtesy of Time-Warner."
"If Don Imus's offensive racial joke was too much for the public to bear, certainly Maher's sickening description of the Mass and Communion as graphic homosexual sex acts is beyond the pale," Knight said.
As WND reported, Maher stirred controversy two years ago when he said Christians suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking."
Appearing as a guest on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," Maher told host Joe Scarborough:
"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can't be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head."
I do not think Bill Maher should be fired just for his remarks. The only way I think he should be fired is if his ratings drop from people not watching his crappy show.
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 19:42 Post subject: Re: FireBillMaher.Com For Catholics To Express Outrage
Bischoff wrote:
Other and Melani what do you 2 think about all of this ?
I can't even stand to listen to Bill Maher. I haven't been able to for years. It's odd that you ask me and Melani, who would OBVIOUSLY be anti-Bill Maher, right?
At any rate, Pope Benedict XVI did join the Hitler Youth when he was a young teenager and the Catholic Church has had some serious pedophilia problems. The best forms of derision tend to have an element of truth in them, don't they?
I don't think Don Imus should have been fired for "acting an a$$", nor do I think Bill Maher should. I do agree with the article that anti-Catholicism is protected but I would venture to expand that since, IME, anti-Christianity, in general, is the last protected bigotry.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 22:06 Post subject:
Chapman says:
''He's an arrogant jerk, IMO.''
That and more. Now I know he can't help it, but... well, he looks strange.
I've seen him in action and he would have no place on my team. That said, he is entitled to his opinion, which means, well, ''He's an arrogant jerk, IMO.''
I put him in the same category with Ward Churchill. I don't really know if Churchhill's views mirrors Maher's because I don't care, but they both need to leave this planet. Besides, there are plenty emphysema patients who can use the air those two breath.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 444 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Mon 21 Apr 2008 22:19 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Quote:
Wasn't he the fellow who said that the true heroes of 911 were the hijackers, since they gave their lives for what they believed in? Who cares what this insect thinks?
That was not what he said. He actually said:
Quote:
"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.
I disagree that shooting cruise missiles makes you a coward. Perhaps he meant that after the Cole, we should have actually gone and got them instead of lobbing cruise missles. But then every one was accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog." I agree that whatever else you want to call the 9/11 terrorists-evil, crazy, etc,-cowardly is not an appropriate word. Choosing to die for a cause is the antithesis of cowardice.
As a person of hmm...how do I put this...catholic heritage who rarely attends church and does not belive the church's version of "absolute truth," I find his statements about the pope both extremely offensive and quite funny. I think people should be able to laugh at themselves.
Any Catholics posters here offended by Bill Maher's comments about Catholicism and the Pope ? Other and Melani what do you 2 think about all of this ?
He's a douchebag and is trying to get some press.
I did watch his show way back when- Politically Incorrect - it was funny, but he hasn't been popular since then. He is best known now for being with 'Superhead' and his many peccadillos with [mostly] Black floozies....
Wasn't he the fellow who said that the true heroes of 911 were the hijackers, since they gave their lives for what they believed in? Who cares what this insect thinks?
That was not what he said. He actually said:
Quote:
"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.
I disagree that shooting cruise missiles makes you a coward. Perhaps he meant that after the Cole, we should have actually gone and got them instead of lobbing cruise missles. But then every one was accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog." I agree that whatever else you want to call the 9/11 terrorists-evil, crazy, etc,-cowardly is not an appropriate word. Choosing to die for a cause is the antithesis of cowardice.
As a person of hmm...how do I put this...catholic heritage who rarely attends church and does not belive the church's version of "absolute truth," I find his statements about the pope both extremely offensive and quite funny. I think people should be able to laugh at themselves.
Thank you for finding the actual quote and putting Maher's antics in the right context. I watch his show and find it pretty hilarious and often outrageous. I am frequently offended by things that he says but I think that overall I consider him an honest and patriotic contrarian who doesn't tow anyone's party line, as opposed to someone like Bill O'Reilly who disingenously portrays himself as an independent. I interpreted the cowardice comment in the overall context of criticizing modern U.S. military engagements (a frequent beef with Maher), which are much more detached and technology-driven. It is one thing to set coordinates and send a bomb from a far and quite another to engage in hand to hand combat. Which act might require more "guts?" I'm not qualified to say as I have never been in the situation but I imagine that it is much easier to kill by proxy than kill directly. That doesn't make the Marine more courageous than the fighter pilot in a real sense though.
It is one thing to set coordinates and send a bomb from a far and quite another to engage in hand to hand combat. Which act might require more "guts?" I'm not qualified to say as I have never been in the situation but I imagine that it is much easier to kill by proxy than kill directly.
This is totally off-topic, but you should understand that the military focuses on accomplishing its mission, not on "spin" nor on macho posturing. I happened to be in South America when Chile's Salvador Allende was overthrown. His heavily armed and well-stocked forces were dug in at the presidential palace in Santiago. Coronel Verdugo, the man tasked with defeating them faced a challenge in doing so without taking horrific casualties in a frontal assault that would cost the lives of hundreds of his own men. His solution was to pull his men back to safe positions and simply level the palace with artillery. This got the job done without Verdugo losing a man. Some criticized him later for not sacrificing his men's lives on the altar of "bravery."
Here is a logical puzzle that most militarily trained individuals can answer with no problem, but most others cannot solve.
You are the commander of 100 men, tasked with marching to the coast through hostile terrain and capturing a fortress there. There are only two possible routes that you can take. If you take route 1, you are certain to lose one-third (33) of your men on the march and will arrive at the coast with 67 soldiers. Route 2 is more of a gamble. If you take route 2, there is a one-in-three (33 percent) chance that your entire force will be wiped out to the last man. But there is a two-in-three (67 percent) chance that everyone will get through to the coast without a scratch. Which route should you take?
It is one thing to set coordinates and send a bomb from a far and quite another to engage in hand to hand combat. Which act might require more "guts?" I'm not qualified to say as I have never been in the situation but I imagine that it is much easier to kill by proxy than kill directly.
This is totally off-topic, but you should understand that the military focuses on accomplishing its mission, not on "spin" nor on macho posturing. I happened to be in Santiago Chile when Salvador Allende was overthrown. His heavily armed and well-stocked forces were dug in at the presidential palace. Coronel Verdugo, the man tasked with defeating them faced a challenge in doing so without taking horrific casualties in a frontal assault that would cost the lives of hundreds of his own men. His solution was to pull his men back to safe positions and simply level the palace with artillery. This got the job done without Verdugo losing a man. Some criticized him later for not sacrificing his men's lives on the altar of "bravery."
I'm very relieved to hear that they do! I will likely never know what it is like to engage in warfare (and you must have some interesting stories to tell!) but it also seems to me that the smartest generals/military personnel try to avoid direct combat as much as possible. It also seems like many cultures equate bravery with the willingness to engage in violence, not with making the right decision (which to me, is eliminating or minimizing bloodshed).
Still, do you think it is "easier" to end a life face-to-face or from a distance? The frequent criticism of hawkish politicians, and one I happen to share, is that many of them do not have an inkling about the mental and social costs of warfare and are all too willing to deploy the military as if they were playing with toy soldiers.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 444 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Wed 23 Apr 2008 19:04 Post subject:
Continuing off topic, this
Quote:
This is totally off-topic, but you should understand that the military focuses on accomplishing its mission, not on "spin" nor on macho posturing. I happened to be in South America when Chile's Salvador Allende was overthrown. His heavily armed and well-stocked forces were dug in at the presidential palace in Santiago. Coronel Verdugo, the man tasked with defeating them faced a challenge in doing so without taking horrific casualties in a frontal assault that would cost the lives of hundreds of his own men. His solution was to pull his men back to safe positions and simply level the palace with artillery. This got the job done without Verdugo losing a man. Some criticized him later for not sacrificing his men's lives on the altar of "bravery."
reminds me that the difference between treason and patriotism is in the eyes of the beholder.
Quote:
You are the commander of 100 men, tasked with marching to the coast through hostile terrain and capturing a fortress there. There are only two possible routes that you can take. If you take route 1, you are certain to lose one-third (33) of your men on the march and will arrive at the coast with 67 soldiers. Route 2 is more of a gamble. If you take route 2, there is a one-in-three (33 percent) chance that your entire force will be wiped out to the last man. But there is a two-in-three (67 percent) chance that everyone will get through to the coast without a scratch. Which route should you take?
Can you take the fort with 67 soldiers? Or are 100 necessary? Military efficacy and the cult of morale are sometimes opposed. If you can take the fort with 67 soldiers, you take route 1. If you put it to a vote, the soldiers would likely prefer to live or die as a group, and choose route 2. Hence the military is not a democracy.
You are the commander of 100 men, tasked with marching to the coast through hostile terrain and capturing a fortress there. There are only two possible routes that you can take. If you take route 1, you are certain to lose one-third (33) of your men on the march and will arrive at the coast with 67 soldiers. Route 2 is more of a gamble. If you take route 2, there is a one-in-three (33 percent) chance that your entire force will be wiped out to the last man. But there is a two-in-three (67 percent) chance that everyone will get through to the coast without a scratch. Which route should you take?
I love puzzles!
Isn't it Rt. 2 because the chances of arriving with all of your men is 67% while taking Rt. 1 gives you the same odds of arriving with only 67 men?
Isn't it Rt. 2 because the chances of arriving with all of your men is 67% while taking Rt. 1 gives you the same odds of arriving with only 67 men?
MisterLawyer wrote:
Can you take the fort with 67 soldiers? Or are 100 necessary? Military efficacy and the cult of morale are sometimes opposed. If you can take the fort with 67 soldiers, you take route 1. If you put it to a vote, the soldiers would likely prefer to live or die as a group, and choose route 2. Hence the military is not a democracy.
Ah, the difference between task-orientation and people-orientation. MisterLawyer is correct. Maya unfortunately forgot the goal. The miltary is ruthlessly goal-oriented--it must be or it will lose the war/battle.
The given task was to capture a fort, nothing more. The lives of your men were secondary to that goal. As MisterLawyer implied, if you need more than 67 men to take the fort, you must choose route 2. Otherwise, you will have failed before you even start. Route 2 at least gives you a 2/3 chance of accomplishing your goal. On the other hand, as MisterLawer stated, if you can pull it off with 67 men, then route 1 guarantees success. Why take a 1/3 chance of failure with route 2?
Isn't it Rt. 2 because the chances of arriving with all of your men is 67% while taking Rt. 1 gives you the same odds of arriving with only 67 men?
MisterLawyer wrote:
Can you take the fort with 67 soldiers? Or are 100 necessary? Military efficacy and the cult of morale are sometimes opposed. If you can take the fort with 67 soldiers, you take route 1. If you put it to a vote, the soldiers would likely prefer to live or die as a group, and choose route 2. Hence the military is not a democracy.
Ah, the difference between task-orientation and people-orientation. MisterLawyer is correct. Maya unfortunately forgot the goal. The miltary is ruthlessly goal-oriented--it must be or it will lose the war/battle.
The given task was to capture a fort, nothing more. The lives of your men were secondary to that goal. As MisterLawyer implied, if you need more than 67 men to take the fort, you must choose route 2. Otherwise, you will have failed before you even start. Route 2 at least gives you a 2/3 chance of accomplishing your goal. On the other hand, as MisterLawer stated, if you can pull it off with 67 men, then route 1 guarantees success. Why take a 1/3 chance of faiure with route 2?
LOL then it is a good thing that I dropped out of ROTC in high school. At least I can tell my team that they can't call me a task-master anymore. It's all about the people for me.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
