Wacko congressman accusses Bill Maher of treason

I will defend anyone's right to make stupid comments or jokes. Whether it be Maher, some wacky congressman or rayban or bvt or anyone else. I might call them on it but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to make fools of themselves all they want to. :wink:

And I will always defend my right to call them fools or for anyone else to call them fools for that matter.

Accusing them of treason however goes a little bit too far.

0 Replies

please do not lump me in with right wing nut congressmen or the people who support them. It hurts. Badly.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I will defend anyone's right to make stupid comments or jokes. Whether it be Maher, some wacky congressman or rayban or bvt or anyone else. I might call them on it but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to make fools of themselves all they want to. :wink:

And I will always defend my right to call them fools or for anyone else to call them fools for that matter.

Accusing them of treason however goes a little bit too far.

You make a humorous point and I can laugh, but you and many others throw around a term that is precious to me and many others. It is this "thing" you toss around called......a RIGHT to do this or that. A right to free speech is a birthright to lucky people born in free countries........it is something to dream about for those not so fortunate. It should therefore be used wisely and with great care..........it can vanish in an instant as it did when Castro's revolution swept Cuba, or when Hitler's Panzers rolled into France........getting down off soapbox.

0 Replies

The suggestion that Cubans had a right to free speech under the regime of Fulgencio Batista which they subsequently lost under Castro is not simply pathetically naive, it is completely historically ignorant.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

please do not lump me in with right wing nut congressmen or the people who support them. It hurts. Badly.

Lumps are supposed to hurt. :wink:

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The suggestion that Cubans had a right to free speech under the regime of Fulgencio Batista which they subsequently lost under Castro is not simply pathetically naive, it is completely historically ignorant.

Your point is historically correct but irrelevant when you replace one dictator with another.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

... it can vanish in an instant ...

Or possibly more slowly over time by way of political pressure and self-censorship.

0 Replies

That's not the way your statement was worded "vanish in an instant when." Your "soapbox" has some weak boards in it.

0 Replies

Sounds like Spencer is jealous.

0 Replies

It is not irrelevant at all to point out that . . .

Quote:

. . . it can vanish in an instant as it did when Castro's revolution swept Cuba . . .

. . . such a statement about freedom of speech constitutes an historical lie. I will further point out that it was used in a pathetic attempt to somehow suggest that others who "throw around a term that is precious to me and many others" are morally culpable in a way which you are not, in light of your inferential moral virtue. However, using an historical lie to attept to bolster such a position beggars the argument.

And, of course, i've not replaced any dictator with any other dictator anywhere at any time.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

A stupid comment and an even stupider response. (is stupider a word?)

If it wasn't before, I would say it is now.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

You make a humorous point and I can laugh, but you and many others throw around a term that is precious to me and many others. It is this "thing" you toss around called......a RIGHT to do this or that. A right to free speech is a birthright to lucky people born in free countries........it is something to dream about for those not so fortunate. It should therefore be used wisely and with great care..........it can vanish in an instant as it did when Castro's revolution swept Cuba, or when Hitler's Panzers rolled into France........getting down off soapbox.

If I have to use my rights with great care then it isn't really a right, is it?
I understand that it is only a right because it CAN be abused, by you as well as me.

Your visions of troops marching in to take that right away don't make your opinion any more valid than mine nor does it make it more likely to happen just because you disagree with how I use the word "right". Men didn't die just so I have to agree with you. They did it so we could disagree.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The suggestion that Cubans had a right to free speech under the regime of Fulgencio Batista which they subsequently lost under Castro is not simply pathetically naive, it is completely historically ignorant.

Your point is historically correct but irrelevant when you replace one dictator with another.

Then work to keep the U.S. from doing just that! We are a single minded nation. We have been doing that at least since 1953 in Iran.

0 Replies

Of course everyone pretty much agrees that this congressman is doing something idiotic here.

But this incident does show just how far off base our leaders have slid. If we all see the stupidity of this, and we are just a bunch of dumb citizens, what does it say that a person like this can become a member of our congress? A person who either doesn't care a whit for the rights of the citizens of our country, or doesn't understand those rights...is...a...f*cking...CONGRESSMAN.

Shouldn't there be some kind of test that these people have to take before they assume such an important position in our government? Shouldn't they have at least read the bill of rights and have some understanding of the f*cking thing?

0 Replies

Oh, they have an "understanding" of the Constitution including, of course, the Bill of Rights. They just like to tailor it to suit them.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is not irrelevant at all to point out that . . .

Quote:
. . . it can vanish in an instant as it did when Castro's revolution swept Cuba . . .

. . . such a statement about freedom of speech constitutes an historical lie. I will further point out that it was used in a pathetic attempt to somehow suggest that others who "throw around a term that is precious to me and many others" are morally culpable in a way which you are not, in light of your inferential moral virtue. However, using an historical lie to attept to bolster such a position beggars the argument.

And, of course, i've not replaced any dictator with any other dictator anywhere at any time.

Your liberal use of sneering condescention is hereby noted and you can be assured I'll not attempt to enter a conversation with someone so anxious to brawl. You know nothing about my motive for making the statement....in fact you know nothing about me at all so pick a fight with someone else.....

BTW.......how is it not a lie when you say that you did not replace a dictator (Batista) with another dictator (Castro) Are you a Castro lover similar to Chomsky? I await your venomous reply. There is no need for you to point out that you only did the replacing literally.

0 Replies

Rayban,

I know that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure Set does as well. So he knows at least one thing about you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As i was not yet ten years of age when Castro chased Batista from power, i simply appeal to the absurdity of your argument in that regard. It is no less absurd than the argument which precedes it, and which is more concerned with slander than justification.

0 Replies

I don't personally like Bill Maher, but this was over the top.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Men didn't die just so I have to agree with you. They did it so we could disagree.

Very succinct parados........I repost it in the hope that someone.....anyone will read it

0 Replies

Wacko congressman accusses Bill Maher of treason

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know