Reason's Nick Gillespie Schools Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher on Fast and Furious
One of the finest examples of how liberal media members really don't know what they're talking about occurred on HBO's Real Time Friday when Reason's Nick Gillespie gave a much-needed education to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and host Bill Maher on the issue of Fast and Furious.
In the end, Maddow and Maher embarrassed themselves in a fashion that should have both of their respective networks seriously concerned about their qualifications to disseminate information to the public (video follows with transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: I think it is, you know, if you believe that Shirley Sherrod was a horrible reverse racist at the Department of Agriculture...
BILL MAHER, HOST: [Laughs] Yes.
MADDOW: ...and if you believe a guy in a pimp suit exposed Planned Parenthood as sex slavers, then yeah, this is the kind of thing that the mainstream media ought to be following Fox too as well. It is based on a crazy conspiracy theory that the Bush, the Obama administration is fomenting gun violence in Mexico in order to make Americans anti-gun…
NICK GILLESPIE, REASON: No.
MADDOW: …so that they can rescind the second amendment.
BILL MAHER, HOST: Right. It’s kind of the, it's the Right's...
GILLESPIE: No, wait, wait, wait, wait. The scandal is that the ATF, which, you know, their high watermark before this was the Waco standoff, where instead of being disbanded they got to be in charge of explosives as well as alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. They were running an organization, an operation where they were not even telling the Mexican government as in past things where this kind of operation...
MAHER: Started under Bush, right?
GILLESPIE: That was a different operation.
MADDOW: Same ideas.
GILLESPIE: Yeah, but they were also in cahoots with the actual Mexican authorities, whoever those might be. But, so you have Eric Holder saying, “No, this wasn’t going on.” Then it’s, “Oh yes, it is going on.” This is, this is a massive screw up, and there is something worth checking out here. It’s not about whether or not Obama’s going to take away the second amendment or anything like that. Eric Holder doesn’t know what’s going on in the organizations that he runs, just like he says, “We’re not waging war on medical marijuana dispensaries in California,” where they’ve made more raids in three years than Bush managed to do in eight or Clinton managed to do.
MAHER: Should he be held in contempt though? Is it…
GILLESPIE: Yeah, well…
MAHER: Really?
GILLESPIE: If he’s not playing by the rules of Congress, and this is not a straight executive power thing because the ATF is a, is a joint Congress and executive branch thing.
Exactly.
It's quite clear Maddow, knowing the show, the host, and the audience, believed she was going to be able to just speak Democrat talking points and Maher would back her up.
Unfortunately for the two of them - but quite beneficial for viewers at home! - Gillespie was there to counter the propaganda.
In so doing, Gillespie exposed Maher as a total nincompoop without any understanding of what he's talking about.
NewsBusters readers know full well I've been exposing that for years.
But far more important, Gillespie showed Maddow to also be a shameless shill lacking the facts on this matter but willing to present the administration's side regardless of the truth.
As Maher is just a comedian with a television show on HBO, him being outed as an idiot is really just sauce for the goose. I demonstrate Maher's deplorably low intellectual capacity so often it's become a sport.
Maddow on the other hand is an unjustifiably well-respected anchor on a so-called cable news network.
That she could be so easily exposed as devoid of the facts in a friendly environment with a supportive host and an adoring audience should seriously concern folks at NBC and MSNBC about the woman they've propped up as the brightest in their organization.
If Maddow really is the best NBC News has to offer, there's no wonder it's "struggling," "slipping," and "adrift" in the ratings war.
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This is why liberals usually
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 12:55am.
This is why liberals usually only invite other friendly liberals onto their shows. They use each other as spring boards and soundboards. It's like watching an entire cast of straight men setting everybody else on stage up for their next lines.
Except this guy didn't seem to want to play ball, and clobbered them upside the head with a truth-shaped cudgel.
I'm still trying to picture a "truth-shaped cudgel"...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 2:16am.
but I digress.
To be perfectly candid I never watch Maher's show because, as you may and frankly should know by now, I think he's a towering a$$hole who shouldn't be allowed within 5 miles of a TV studio or a microphone. That said, having now been exposed to numerous NB blogs about him over the years, I gather that he does quite often host conservative guests, even reasonably erudite ones. So, I think your criticism may be not entirely fair--at least as it pertains to Maher.
By the way, I haven't noticed any postings in your series of dramatic and ominous "mark my words" predictions of late. Are you waiting for at least one of them to actually materialize? ;-)
Jer
Shaped by truth, not in the shape of truth
Submitted by OhioHistorian on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:45am.
But I also digress. Gillespie and Bill Maher deserve each other, They both are nothings. I attribute this to a slow news day, nothing more.
Thomas Alva Edison
Haven't had to. The
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:09am.
Haven't had to. The slow-motion train wreck that is liberalism and the Obama regime has been happening exactly as was predicted. There have been variations on specificity, but the generalizations have all (unfortunately) come to pass, as we knew they would.
We predicted the economy would not improve under his policies. We predicted that unemployment would get worse. We predicted that Obama and the government would botch, bungle and waste the trillions they've taken from us in taxes. We predicted the media would continue to get more and more nasty in their efforts to protect Obama and worm his way to a second term. We predicted that the government conquest of medical care would be unpopular and unconstitutional. We predicted that when he said he had a 'laser like focus' on creating jobs, he was lying. We predicted that Obama's declaration of 'transparency' was a lie. We predicted that his boast of 'not having any lobbyists' in his cabinet would be a lie. We predicted that Obama would try to blame everyone else when his policies failed. We predicted that 'green energy' was a losing investment, and all the money Obama sank into it would be money wasted. We predicted that Obama's ridiculous apology tours would do nothing to cure world unrest and that violence and terrorism would not abate simply by reason of his election. We predicted that the 'arab spring' was not a 'peace uprising', and that Obama's silly attempts to take credit for it would backfire. We predicted that all the 'committees' Obama assembled to 'fix' the economy would be ignored by him in favor of his own petty schemes.
I haven't had to enumerate all the predictions that have come true about Obama's failed presidency - until you sneeringly asked for them. They SHOULD have been obvious. We thought that since liberals are supposed to be the smart ones, that they might be able to actually put 2 and 2 together without going 13 trillion dollars in debt.
But if you want more, here you go. Liberal media (including people like Mahar) will continue to plumb new depths of sleaziness, lies and nastiness as Obama's presidency continues to fail. Obama's policies will not improve the economy before the election. If anything, it will get worse. Unemployment will not get any better. They'll keep playing 'race' and 'gay' cards over and over and stoking the flames of civil unrest. Obama will continue to blame Bush and that ever liberal pundit in the media and elsewhere will continue to eat whatever tripe the regime dumps in front of them. Here's a long-term prediction. If Obama loses, and the vote is even marginally close, they will do exactly what they did in 2000. They'll accuse the GOP of 'cheating' and 'suppressing' the vote. It will probably cause a national uproar and divide us even more, and perhaps lead to civil unrest and even violence. If it does, I want you to go back and see which side it was that asked for their people to 'argue and get in their face', and go out and 'punish my enemies'.
While we're making predictions...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 12:05pm.
...here are two I really hope don't come true.
1) Even if Obama is roundly defeated in the November elections, even if there's a landslide of sorts for Romney (pardon me while I stop giggling), our dictator will not leave office. Indeed, there will be allegations of massive, conspiratorial improprieties, and more than just isolated instances of orchestrated civil unrest. It could even prompt the overt creation of that "civilian national security force" he promised--one promise I hope he doesn't keep, but I feel that he will.
2) If, by hook or by crook, Obama stays in office after the 2012 elections, he will not leave in 2016. That is, unless we see the nations of this planet cede national sovereignty to such a point that Secretary General becomes President of Earth, in which case our dictator, President Kardashian, will move to a bigger stage.
--Mike
Jer is clueless here..
Submitted by Mark81150 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 4:39pm.
I'm not a birther, not a Paul fan (Gawwd I can't stand that guy), not a conspiracist of any type. I don't see black helicopters or worry about a UN invasion.. but I'll tell you this..
I am 53 years old, I grew up in the cold war, enlisting when it was very unpopular, and college leftists still spit on an American uniform.. and yes liberals, it did happen, both to my uncle coming home from Nam, and myself in a bar in Cheyenne when the "college boys" were feeling that it was "their" bar..
I have never once in even those days feared that my own government would turn on us. Even Carter, as incompetent a boob as he was, at least wasn't a sorry excuse when it came to following the precedents of presidential actions. He didn't rule by dictatorial order when Congress said no, and we never had a president who simply ignored the other two co-equal branches of government.
Now we have Hugo (friggin) Chavez in the White House.
He ignores the laws he doesn't like, lies routinely to a lapdog left wing press happy to have his royal highness in office. They bury his murderous scandal in Mexico... he ignores Congressional subpenas.. ignores the rule of law, involved us in a war in Lybia without even asking Congress, or even the UN.. (something Bush NEVER did).. he has packed his west wing with radical leftists who admire communist dictators.. he loves the radical chic of Chavez, loves the radical left in Hollywood,.. lives like a royal fool when millions suffer from his incompetence.. and has with the illegal stroke of a pen..
entirely rewritten immirgration law.. with zero Congressional input.
just like that.. the King has declared himself above US law.
Damn right this president incites these fears, because he ignores the law and lies so openly. He had better walk away when he looses peacefully.. because if he plays cute again with the law, the election..
we will not let him get away with it.
we will not tolerate a US Chavez.
a promise..
Mark, your post proves my cluelessness
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 6:34pm.
exactly how?
Jer
Jer, your reply prettty much does---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:43pm.
just that. :o)
MD
Matthew, re your reply agreeing with the Vet:
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:52pm.
ditto.
[As it pertains to your level of clueness]
;-)
Jer
Ahh ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:03pm.
clueless.
How did you get by without clueness being redlined?
MD
Lately I've just been making up words and ignoring the redlining
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:11pm.
Jer
Slyrr, I'm not referring to your tedious recitation of GOP
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:23pm.
talking points. Maybe you should review my comment. I had in mind your posts containing "dramatic and ominous" mark my words predictions of which the following sack of vitriol is but one example:
Eventually, libutards in the
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 04/16/2011 - 8:47pm.
Eventually, libutards in the Democrat media are going to cause another Tucson-style shooting, or worse. They're whipping their rabid acolytes into such a fury with their violent rhetorics and scare tactics that they'll soon drive some of them to action.
When people are scared, they do stupid things. And if there's one thing that Demorats do well (besides tax, spend and lie), it's scaring their followers. This week the media and Demorats have behaved disgracefully. That's nothing new, but when you look back on it, if people were thinking rationally, they would laugh the Demorats out of power on the spot and demand that charges be brought up against every liberal news network.
Look back on what they said and did. Frothing and screeching that the GOP was going to 'kill seniors', 'kill women', 'throw granny into the snow'. And many of them saying they'd go up to republicans and 'blow their brains out'.
And these fools still have people who follow them and believe in what they say. There's only so long that such blind followers can hear such scare-mongering before they get so scared they act. If Demorat disciples and kool-aid drinkers truly believe that the GOP is 'coming after them' (as the Demorats accuse), then they will think themselves justified in doing whatever it takes to eliminate the perceived 'threat'.
And with Obama driving the ecomony into ruin, with unemployment, world wars, terrorist attacks, suicide rates and gas prices skyrocketing under this failed President - fear will be roiling inside them. Demorats will continue to blame the GOP for all these things, and eventaully their rabid followers will take up weapons.
Mark my words - they will use violence. And mark my words on this - when a liberal or a Demorat murders because of their fear-mongering leaders, they will say they did it to 'save old people/blacks/babies/women' from the big, bad, GOP that was just lurking out in the bushes, waiting for the chance to spring out and steal their Medicare.
And the media will be right there cheering them on - just as they did in Tucson - blaming Palin and the GOP before they'd even heard ANY evidence or facts.
I don't want violence to happen. But the Demorats do. They can't wait for their followers to kill someone, so they can blame the GOP.
They should be careful though. Rush Limbaugh, as he so often does, nailed it when he said this: 'If Democrats want mob rule they'd better be careful. Because OUR mob is much bigger than theirs.' [My emphasis in bold]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/16/maher-democrats-di...
Hey Jer long time no see...
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:29pm.
I'm still trying to picture a "truth-shaped cudgel"...
They are over at the Breitbart store on Breitbart.com feel free to apply it to your melon when you get a chance.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Good to see you, Red...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 1:20am.
I'd love to stay and chat but I still have this awful ringing in my ears. Could it be the sound of...Truth? I guess the truth does hurt.
Jer
Yes you are right. It's
Submitted by Staying Normal ... on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 4:27am.
Yes you are right. It's usually an exclusive club of lefty losers. The reason a Libertarian like Gillespie is allowed on is because he'll always be taking the pro-legalization of Marijuana and drugs..which Maher that bong-head adores ...but sometimes the scorpion stings them.
Fresh Air
Submitted by Netstatter on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 1:01am.
Well, Gillespie was a breath of fresh air in all of the fetid atmosphere that hangs around Bill Maher and Rachel Madow.
Please continue speaking truth to liberals, Mr. Gillespie.
Maddow
Submitted by Metsie62 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 1:05am.
I can't speak for Bill Maher but can someone please explain why a so-called intellectually elitist like Rachel Maddow will continue to hold onto her convictions when she must see evidence night after night which is shown to be contrary.
I have to monitor Newsbusters for Bill Maher updates since I no longer subscribe to HBO...I won't go after a person's sponsors since I believe in a right to free speech...but I don't have to pay for the network which supports him.
We can laugh at the lefties until we are all blue in the face
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 1:08am.
...but that doesn't change the fact that they are still winning, and that right handily, as very few of their hideous freedom-destroying policies have ever been actually repealed, much less reversed.
-And they have a 100 year head start to work from.
All we have really managed to do is repeal the 55 mph speed limit, and unregulate CB radios.
Big f'ing deal.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Google We Much and Much We Shall...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 1:33am.
I punched in "Differences between Operation Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious" and inside of two minutes was able to determine that the two programs are so far apart as to be laughable. I hope the Clown Posse at MESSDNC keeps trying to "Blame Bush" for this, the blowback will be epic...
Last night O'Reilly had two
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:34am.
Last night O'Reilly had two Commicrat hacks, one being Kristn Powers, that were blaming Bush. Instead of debunking the Bush did it crap he went after them about the here and now. WithHolder himself said it wasn't Bush's fault but the LSM and thier Commiecrat pals can't let go of that.
This is the new
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:28am.
This is the new tactic...reframe it as a Bush scandal that Obama inherited.
O'Reilly is a pinhead for letting them set the terms of the argument.
But what's the shocker in that?
It appears to me that Maddow and Maher
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 1:41am.
may be more in touch than is Gillespie with the sentiments of a whole bunch of NBers who believe the larger and ultimate issue at play here is indeed an attempt to weaken Second Amendment rights.
So I'm not so sure Maddow and Maher were the ones who got "schooled" in this case--at least on that question.
Jer
Hey Jer
Submitted by David Kramer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 5:34am.
Since YOU brought up the question. Tell me, exactly what was the purpose of the operation if the guns were never followed and the agents were told not to interdict them? This should be an interesting.
Jer
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:15am.
I am curious as to what the heck was the purpose of Fast & Furious. It obviously wasn't put in place to track and arrest members of the Mexican drug cartels, as was the Bush program (which was shut down in 2007).
So why were guns allowed to flow freely, untraced, into the hands of Mexican drug dealers.
If not to undermine the legal American gun trade, what?
Now, I realize you were not part of this operation, and I am merely asking you to speculate, but, really, what was the plan?
I think that was answered the
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:41am.
I think that was answered the other day when the Oversight Committtee voted contempt charges against WithHolder. I can't remember if it was Maxine Waters or Shelia Jackson Lee, both useless idiots, kept saying what we found out was that we needed more gun control and more ATF agents. It worked on the Commicrats. I just wish they'd tell me what one more gun control law would have done to stop it when the firearm dealers were told by the AFT to let the sells go through.
Whether you know it or not WithHolder has refused to let some of his senoir people testify. He has not only withheld documents but withheld witnesses.
Oh the ATF were able to do some
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:05am.
tracking of the weapons when they showed up at Mexican crime scenes and one in Arizona. Maybe they thought it was easier to do it that way.
Conspiracy theories generally sprout from some real
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:16am.
evidence that points to an unknown motive. Often the theories make take the A train into Crazytown, but the fact remains that the unanswered question leads people to speculate.
In this case, we have the evidence cited above, where agents were told not to track the guns. We have many things that Obama and Holder have said about guns and gun control, such as when Holder stating (paraphrasing here) that he wants to get people to view guns in the same way that they are starting to view cigarettes; as a dangerous thing that must be stopped.
I don't think anyone on the right side of this argument thinks that Obama will move to repeal the second amendment; it much easier to achieve the same thing through regulation, and he's proven many times that he will do an end-run around the American people and Congress to do just such things.
So when Madcow and Maher comically reduce these issues to those idiotic caricatures that lefties love to latch on to, such as "Obama wants to repeal the second amendment", and "Planned Parenthood is trafficking in sex slaves", then they allow themselves and their followers to not take the issue seriously. No one believed that ACORN (It was not PP, Madcow...it was PP that would allow, or even assist in gender-specific abortions - get your caricatures straight) was trafficking in sex slaves, but we did see from those numerous undercover videos that they would do whatever they were asked to do in order to further their agenda, even if it meant allowing a sex slave trafficker to get public financing. Either way, we on the right believe that the public should not be financing these criminal left-wing boondoggles.
So...do I believe that Obama and Holder were in from the beginning on F&F and knew that guns would walk unaccounted for? I"m skeptical, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, given what they've done so far. And do I believe that Obama and Holder would do underhanded things in order to further their stated goal of much more heavy-handed gun control? Yes, I do, and their actions have proved that they are willing to go around congress and create their own rules. Obama has absolutely proved many times that he believes he has been bestowed an imperial presidency. I won't waste space listing the evidence, except to say that he did it again last week by going around congress (they specifically voted AGAINST the same thing in the Dream Act) with his announcement of his new policy not to deport young illegals.
Regardless of whether Obama and Holder had nefarious intent with F&F, there is plenty of evidence that Holder and Obama are hiding SOMETHING, and that they screwed up so bad that we must get to the bottom of it. And let's not forget that Border Agent Terry was killed as a result. That alone is enough to push this thing all the way.
Weaken 2nd Amendment rights
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 3:32pm.
It may not (directly) represent the agenda of the administration but you know some liberals are salivating at turning F&F into a platform for more gun control.
From a recent Eugene Robinson oped column:
If Issa really wants to save U.S. and Mexican lives, he should convene hearings on banning the sale of high-powered weapons. I think Holder would be happy to testify.
Model...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 3:53pm.
I am sure there are considerable numbers of gun control advocates who would leap at any pretext for hearings designed to promote what they would insist are sensible firearm regulations and the enactment of legislation closing loopholes, etc.
But, I think the evidence is pretty clear this administration lacks the political will, congressional clout and popular support for any significant push for new federal gun laws.
Just curious: Do you consider all federal firearm legislation, past and present, to constitute a per se weakening of 2nd Amendment rights?
Jer
Jer, time ref
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 4:02pm.
While I'm not sure I buy the whole second amendment attack - your reference to the will, clout and popularity of this administration is out of proper time context. When the program was initiated the administration enjoyed control of House, Senate and WH with Obama riding high in polls and expectations. The fact that is not true now would not have changed motivations at that time.
Jer
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 3:00pm.
Sorry it took this long to respond.
Your statement that the administration lacks the will, etc., is pretty much why I prefaced the link to the Robinson column as not being "directly" from the administration. The cite was meant more to illustrate that thinking F&F was a ruse to lead to more gun control was not just "loony right-wing conspiracy theories." The fact that a liberal columnist mentioned (advocated?) stricter gun control hearings reinforces the idea of what might have been the actual intent of F&F.
As for your question, no, I do not consider all federal firearm legislation as constituting a per se weakening of 2nd Amendment rights. But I also see no need for additional legislation as I believe there are sufficient regulations already on the books, with enforcement being the weak link, not a dearth of laws.
I can see how that I used "weakened 2nd amendment" as the subject line might provoke your question. Perhaps the subject line was ill-advised and could have been better phrased.
Cows to the slaughter...
Submitted by dimar on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 6:52am.
I don't think that any of us really belives that Maddow and Maher don't know all about Fast and Furious. The liberral press made a concious decision to withhold this information from the public and now they are playing it down by saying it is so insignificant they knew nothing about it. They did not expect the contempt charge and now have to explain why it hasn't been reported. The problem is it was a bad mistake on their part because this is going to continue and it is a BIG problem for them and their candidate...
Never know this could be the
Submitted by hoosherdaddy137 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:19am.
Never know this could be the springboard to launch the new anti-obama sentiment in the media. Up to now the leftist media have gone all in on the prez leaving little they could do as he continually defecates all over them. Fast and furious will give the press an excuse to back off and possibly save their careers when the people decide enough is enough. When this is exposed for what it REALLY is under all the smoke and mirrors, Americans will find out about the press blackout then it will be to late for these party liners to talk their way out of it. It blows me away this huge scandal has lived only in blogs for a year and a half, Im a broke student and I have been screaming this at the top of my lungs. where are the billboard makers? seriously guys you will spend how much to put up a billboard that only says "SOCIALIST" but you wont put up a billboard of holder and the stats of death beside his head? Im from new mexico, alot of people here have family who reside just beyond the southern boarder, if you want the latino vote I suggest you start by letting them know what dear leader has done to their families. The super pacs would be wise to pay very close attention to how this pans out
Great post...
Submitted by seen the light on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:29am.
I've been hoping some very wealthy patriots put out some serious advertising with messages just like that. Billboards in Arizona,Texas, New Mexico, Cali, with Holder's head and a death count of Mexicans. It's simply cold blooded that the administration looked at human being as expendable.
Great Description...
Submitted by adamsmith on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:21am.
Maher...deplorably low intellectual capacity. I've been saying he's the "shallowest thinker in television" for a long while now. He reads the Huffington Post an hour before showtime, and thinks he knows it all. I say make him a true Socialist and confiscate everything he owns. Giving Obamalinsky a million dollar donation just goes to show a moron and his money are soon parted. I love when this idiot rips on "old white men" like he's a young rapper or something. Dude, you're an old white fart who only has a show because Soros is paying someone at HBO. You claim to be a comedian, but you're only funny to sheep who don't know any better. Put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, Little Billy. The world would immediately be a better place by one.
They know the facts on FF, they just chose to ignore them...
Submitted by seen the light on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:31am.
and I doubt Nick will be invited back. there is a reason Maher stacks the deck all the time. He's a coward and dishonest.
So many things wrong with this segment it'll be
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:00am.
hard to quantify them all.
First, Gillespie. I'm not fond anyone who's most important mission in life is the legalization of pot. He's a hardcore Libertarian on the fringe of conservatism. On the plus side, being a fringe Libertarian at least means he's strong on individual liberty - even if he takes it to dangerous extremes.
Maddow is nothing but a snarky caricature of leftist, self-ascribed elitism. Sherrod was fired by the Obama Administration. She was never re-hired. Maddow's complaints in this arena should be directed at them, though she instead claims some Conservative conspiracy.
Same for Planned Parenthood. The fact that staffers from all over the country have been trained with one goal in mind is an institutional problem, and it was recently exposed again in another form - sex-selective abortions. Planned Parenthood certainly is not telling their new hires "encourage sex-trafficking of minors" or "suggest abortion to mothers of girls". What they are doing is selling abortions and they don't care who, or under what conditions they sell those abortions. They certainly are trained to not ask, nor regard the reason someone may want an abortion. This, on its face and purely as a business model, is defensible. But abortion supporters won't defend it because they would then have to admit that what they're doing is running a business - a large (truly evil) corporation partially dependent on taxpayer dollars to turn a huge profit by killing fetuses. Mostly black or brown fetuses, by the way. Maddow knows this, but because its such an awful product that is perpetrated on non-elites, telling the truth about PP and its mission is institutionally forbidden. So, she concocts another VRWC to cover up the practice of limiting births among the great unwashed; the mission of PP's founder and a dare-not-spoken platform of progressive politics.
The best way to beat a person like Maddow in a debate is simply apply the facts. I would like to know how she reacted to Gillespie giving them to her; she seemed quite stunned at the outset, and I suspect she had little to counter. Dismissing the death of Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of innocent Mexicans because she didn't like that PP was exposed as an abortion mill is the height of disgusting "elitism". Maddow is not elite. She's a pig. She is a slave to the almighty belief that abortion must be protected as a way to maintain control over those they need to keep them in power.
Who, by the way, are vastly more dangerous if they own guns.
Good description of you, Bill Maher, is nobody
Submitted by OhioHistorian on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:38am.
Good description of you, Bill Maher, is nobody. You live up to it so well.
As for me, I care about a thug of an AG who would sell weapons to criminals in a foreign country. Especially when he did nothing to track them, did not work with the foreign country, and did it for reasons that vary from undecipherable to the possibility that he was trying to change public opinion on guns. No, libs, Bush stopped Wide Receiver in 2007 and worked with the Mexican government on it. This was an Obama administration brain-child.
So, Bill, either you care about people (the poor, other nations, etc) or you don't. I think you demonstrated your position as a liberal very well in that clip. You don't give a rat's a$$ about anyone other than yourself. You, like Obama and so many other liberals, are just a narcissist.
Thomas Alva Edison
Someone who knows what she is talking about.
Submitted by Lorianne_W on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 1:19am.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Kati
Why doesn't Maddow interview Katie Pavlich?
Their talking point is that
Submitted by ASterling on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 6:31am.
Their talking point is that Fast & Furious was a Bush program and that Eric Holder STOPPED IT. Never mind that "Wide Receiver" was stopped almost two years before the end of the Bush administration. They tell their constituents Bush did it all. The constituents do not know (and most certainly would not care even if Nick Gillespie showed up in their living room to explain it to them) that among the misstatements to Congress on the part of AG Holder, one was the assertion that Mike Mukasey, his predecessor, "knew about" or "authorized" the operation. They don't care about the letter that denied any such activities, and the identical statements made to the Mexican government and to the public via Univision. They don't care that it makes little sense that the President would assert "executive privilege" if AG Holder did all the things they say he did. Documents would prove he "stopped" the operation. Unfortunately, of course, he had previously testified (and staff wrote the infamous letter to Sen. Grassley) he knew nothing of "Fast & Furious" during the period he supposedly "stopped it. He gave someone's messy handwritten note to Cong. Issa as the big document handoff - it's seriously a 5 x 7 memo pad with a few scrawled lines and no identification or date of any type.
Re: Maher is a narcissist. He dates "adult film stars" and lingerie models. Look at him. If he didn't have his money and fame, he would not be "dating" this quality of companion. There's nothing sexy or interesting about him, and he's an obvious verbal and probably physical abuser.
I finally hit the roof this evening (I know - what's my tolerance level?) upon hearing that the Justice Department not only cut off its support to Arizona law enforcement, they were advertising some type of "civil rights hotline."
So, maybe the best way to think of it is the Donald Trump way. You know how he has "You're fired!" perfected? I'm sure most of you here know better than me how people in media lose their jobs, but I know they have to bring in money and ratings or they're gone. I don't get who is still watching Bill Maher. We know how crummy MSNBC ratings are. As to the rest, we made a hiring error in 2008. Unfortunately, unlike regular life where people can be terminated (unless they're teachers, of course) quickly, we have to wait until November to let this administration go for cause. Or - gross malfeasance.