Saturday, March 17, 2012

Obama Should Return Hate Speech Comic's Million

We read:
"Misogyny and hate-mongering are not things President Obama wants his re-election campaign tainted by. There's no avoiding getting his Super-PAC to return sleaze merchant Bill Maher's million dollars.

Just when you thought there couldn't be any worse double standards, a sewer-mouthed "comedian" gives a million smackers to help re-elect President Obama, yet the major media and leading Democrats think it's fine.

The same Democrats and media organizations blew a socket when Rush Limbaugh used "slut" to describe a feminist activist who wants taxpayers to finance her efforts at avoiding pregnancy. But consider how Bill Maher has treated Sarah Palin.

Not only has he called her the c-word in his act, and another four-letter obscenity with the same meaning; he compared Palin to a "pimp" and called her family — which includes a son with Down Syndrome — "inbred."

Maher also lumped former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Palin together using an obscene four-letter acronym little known outside pornographic chat rooms.

This is the president who last year called for civility in politics. Let it begin with his calling on his supporters to return the tainted booty of this foul-mouthed hatemonger.

Source

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

That million dollars bought Obama, there's no doubt about it.

Anonymous said...

IMPORTANT:

My county is thinking about amending advertisement laws to prevent that Obama ad from going up on the metro. The liberals want to throw away the first amendment.

http://www.arlnow.com/2012/03/16/county-board-considers-regulating-metro-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-136406

Bird of Paradise said...

He isnt about to return the money from a sewer mouthed leftists little worm like BILL MAHER becuase their both the same kind of biggoted loud mouths

A. Levy said...

The real reason the money won't be returned is simply because they know they don't have to return it. Obummer and his Leftist worshipers in the Demoncrat party and the MSM know full-well that the Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are too weak to really put a stop to these kinds of things by countering with the same tactics.

Republicans and Conservatives have a very bad, and usually fatal, habit of "playing by the rules", while the Left plays the game of politics by no rules. When there's only one team on the field playing by the rules, the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

Anonymous said...

You guys do realize that as a super PAC, they are in no way allowed coordinate with the candidate.

If Obama were to say, "Hey, super PAC, you should return the money that Bill Maher gave you," that would be considered coordinating.

The same would be true of Romeny, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul.

The headline is misleading, almost to the point of deception. Also, isn't this site about how we should encourage more speech, not shut down speech we don't like.

I thought I read that on this site somewhere.

-neil

Anonymous said...

This site isn't really about free-speech, it's a promotion of views against leftist/liberal politics, homosexuality, atheism/secularism, multi-culturalism and otherwise any criticism of traditional/conservative values (mostly à la USA). Consequently most of the posters commenting here just echo the biased spin the moderator puts on his appropriately selected topics.

Dean said...

3:59 This isn't only about free speech, it's also about hypocrisy on the part of liberals.

Liberals have a near heart attack when Limbaugh President Obama calls her to check on how she's doing. Limbaugh is blasted, there are calls to prosecute him.

Mayer(sp?) calls conservative women c**ts and t**ts, insults their children and uses sneering terms to describe their political philosophy and, well that's just fine. No problem. No criticism, no calls for an apology.

Axelrod even goes on TV and says the two instances should be judged differently.

That's the hypocrisy these comments are about.

As usual it's the liberal cant of "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Final note: I feel Limbaugh stepped out of bounds with his comment. Mayer stepped even further out.

Dean said...

Drat. The last eight words of sentence one in the second paragraph disappeared. Here's the corrected version.


3:59 This isn't only about free speech, it's also about hypocrisy on the part of liberals.

Liberals have a near heart attack when Limbaugh refers to a liberal womam as a slut. President Obama calls her to check on how she's doing. Limbaugh is blasted, there are calls to prosecute him.

Mayer(sp?) calls conservative women c**ts and t**ts, insults their children and uses sneering terms to describe their political philosophy and, well that's just fine. No problem. No criticism, no calls for an apology.

Axelrod even goes on TV and says the two instances should be judged differently.

That's the hypocrisy these comments are about.

As usual it's the liberal cant of "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Final note: Limbaugh stepped out of bounds with his comment. Mayer stepped even further out.

Anonymous said...

Dean said:

"This isn't only about free speech, it's also about hypocrisy on the part of liberals."

I'm not sure I understand your argument regarding this article. This article is about how Obama should return money that doesn't belong to him and deal with a group of people with whom he cannot deal with.

If you look at the second sentence in the first paragraph, you will see what I mean:

"There's no avoiding getting his Super-PAC to return sleaze merchant Bill Maher's million dollars."

Even that sentence has two distinct problems that invalidate everything else mentioned below it for two reasons:

1. The super PAC does not belong to Obama. Therefore the money is not Obama's to give back.

2. Any attempt by Obama to have any influence over the super PAC would rightfully lead to a law suit, since it would be illegal for Obama to coordinate in any way.

Also, look at the title used here on this site, as well as from the original source:
Obama Should Return Hate Speech Comic's Million - TT
Obama Obliged to Return Hate Speech Comic's Million - IBD

The article is clearly saying that Obama should engage in an illegal act. And the same sentiment is echoed here, with the use of a similar title.

The author of this article clearly does not understand how super PACs work and the laws governing them. And it surprises me that a source as highly respected as this one can make such a wrong-headed argument is almost beyond belief.

But the fact that you stand up for this article and attempt to dissuade me from pointing out that fact tells me that perhaps your reading comprehension may not be fully realized, or you are attempting to change the subject rather than argue the facts since they do not jibe with your worldview, or you are so blineded by your vitriol that any article that would hope to make Obama look bad can be taken without understanding any of the points within the article.

Dean said...

10:22 No argument about Obama's role in the money being returned. Big argument about the hypocrisy shown by liberals in this affair.

Even if Obama can't tell his PAC to return the money, they should anyway. And would if those running it were really concerned about entertainers making insulting, lewd and obscene comments about women.

Anonymous said...

Annon 2:35, its obvious you are a Bill Maher fan with all those big words you use in your post. You know, the crude ones that illiterate people like to use since they can't reason.

Brian from Rochester NY said...

I think a lot of you are missing the point. Obama doesn't have to tell the PAC to return the money, all he has to do is tell them and Mahr that he (Obama) will not receive the money. And if he already took it, he would right them a check to return it.

That has nothing to do with coordinating with the PAC. All he's saying is "Thanks, but no thanks"

That said, you know he will never do it, and you know that no one in the media will call him on the hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Censored again

Anonymous said...

Brian,

Any communication Obama makes to the super PAC (it's not a regular PAC, that he could do or say something) would be considered coordinating.

If he were to say something along the lines of, "I don't like what Bill Maher said and think his money should be returned," would be considered coordinating.

In fact, as the law is written, if Obama even made a public opinion regarding the money it could, by the strictest definition, be considered to be a sort of stealth coordination.

Unless a third party, such as a reporter, were to ask Obama's opinion regarding the money, anyone could reasonably claim that Obama is attempting to coordinate with the super PAC by stealthy means. In fact, if I were running his campaign, my advice to him would simply say you have no opinion how the super PAC is run.

Unless you can show me where in the ruling it creates a solid definition for coordination, then the word is open to interpretation. And any lawyer worth their salt will, at the very least, be able to tie up the campaign in court, probably even after the election.

I don't understand why the people on this site cannot see that, since this is how the people behind Citizen's United wanted the law to work.

So if you have a problem with the fact that Obama hasn't said anything, then you should contact James Bopp Jr. of Terra Haute, IN and ask him to bring the case before the court again and ask for a different ruling.

Anyone who says Obama should take any sort of action is either ignorant of how the law is laid out or is so blinded by their own hate they cannot even be bothered to understand how the law works.

Go Away Bird said...

The demacrats probibly think maher sewer jokes are funny

Anonymous said...

"The demacrats probibly think maher sewer jokes are funny"

You are a hell of a lot funnier than Mr. Maher.

Anonymous said...

What about those Koch suckers? Those brothers should keep their ill gotten gains out of politics.

Anonymous said...

"What about those Koch suckers? Those brothers should keep their ill gotten gains out of politics."

But since they have no "ill-gotten" gains to spend so they have the same right to spend their legally earned money on politics as anyone else.