September 19, 2009

"Yes, it was fun this week to watch the teabaggers complain how the media underestimated the size of their march..."

"... 'How can you say there were only 60,000 of us? We filled the entire mall!' Yes, because you're fat. One whale fills the tank at Sea World, that doesn't make it a crowd."

Bill Maher is trying to be funny as he propounds a "New Rule" and says: "You can't complain about health care reform if you're not willing to reform your own health." Note that he's not saying that liberals aren't fat too — and I think they are — just: You can't complain about health care reform if you're not willing to reform your own health.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 3:48 PM
Tags: , , ,

216 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 216 of 216
OhioAnne said...

Beth said...
Every time a liberal uses the word "teabagger" they lose another swing voter back to the GOP. Keep it up left-tards.

Sure thing, teabagger. Keep up the "left-tard"; the recruiting is almost swinging me right.

Recall the days of the "silent majority"?

As one who is generally in that camp .... When people feel need the use the phrase "tea baggers", I DO NOT take anything else they say as "credible". Heck, I often time even stop reading what they say when the use the term. If their language skills are so poor, why waste my time?

However, I ALSO have the SAME reaction to any variation of the word "left-tard" and for the same reason. Why waste time on reading that crap.

The Democrats and Republicans are missing the larger point. People are fed up with both parties' actions and bickering. ANY rational third option is the one going to get the votes.

9/20/09, 7:28 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Unfortunately they are all quite below your level, I'm sure. They don't know what's good for them.

I'm pretty sure that the most condescending view of the poor is the one which preaches that the only thing that should matter to them is the price of their consumer goods.

9/20/09, 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...

So Ann is STILL lying about the 2 million protestors.

Too funny.

9/20/09, 9:35 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

No, that's YOUR simplification of what I said. I expect Maher to detect contradictions like the ones Loafing Oaf noticed. It's Maher's job, for godsakes. If a viewer remembers what Maher's position was on Russia, than Maher should. Or he should explain why suddenly he has ditched it. If he doesn't he will come across as an Obama ass-kisser.

Maher's job consists of finding a way to keep enough of an audience entertained so that he can make a living off of it. Isn't that the way markets work? Or is it just about supermarkets and box shops?

Maher's value in raising the bar of political discourse among the entertainment/info-tainment drones in this country doesn't mean that he's not entitled to his own views, strongly held views or even changing his views. It doesn't mean he's not entitled to believe (as he always, consistently, has) that the shortsightedness of the public is often, unfortunately, reflected in the shortsightedness of the political class.

I don't see the outrage in Maher switching from a more libertarian stance in the nineties to one that is relieved to have Obama in office in 2009. Again, why does ideology have to trump everything? On some things he remains true to a sense of libertarianism. On others, such as health care for instance, he sees that the country is bankrupting itself and encouraging bad decisions among the public. Maher has never been a fan of coddling people for making decisions that he finds stupid, wasteful, narcissistic and short-sighted and calls attention to that regularly. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that we needed a president intelligent enough both to see that, and with the political skills to successfully change that.

Further, it's amazing the degree to which you misunderstand Maher's motivations in keeping the GOP in check. He works in media, for chrissakes. His father worked in broadcasting, I think. He seemed to have decent professional relationships with the politicians of both parties that he interviewed. For the Bush administration to muzzle him in the wake of 9/11 - (for voicing agreement with Dinesh D'Souza, for crying out loud!) - threatening his career and leading to the cancellation of his show on network TV, I'm pretty sure that would make a huge impression on someone. How would you react if the government threatened your livelihood? So Maher saw this as a part of the same authoritarian over-reach of the corrupt Bush "security state" years that many others did. And you think that, as a libertarian, he should have seen things any differently? Now who's being inconsistent?

So, Maher's now cozier with the left than he used to be. So what? It's not like "So what?" wouldn't be your reaction to the corruption, incompetence and soft authoritarianism of the Bush years now, would it? But there's a difference. You asked a question, and the Oaf pushed the point behind an obvious answer. I provided that answer. And it's consistent, and it makes sense.

9/20/09, 9:45 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oh, and BTW, the whole missile defense canard has been explained elsewhere. We really should be pissing off Russia in order to assuage the egos of the Czechs and Poles with a Star Wars system too costly to build, that won't work? And this is what you think you're calling Maher out for?

Maher's just smart enough to sense that Obama's intelligence and interest in a foreign policy that sees diplomacy and strategy as at least as important as "strutting our stuff" might be good for the nation, and left it at that. Thank Gawd we're not going back to the era when every Joe Six Pack fancied himself an armchair foreign policy analyst with a prescription for every conflict around the world that boiled down to the idiotic simplicity of obsessively focusing on whether or not America's "pride" was protected - and confusing that with whether something was really in our best interests or not.

But nice try on the reviving Star Wars thing. The Prof has a post on Jedis. Why not get your penchant for flash satisfied over there and go check that out instead?

9/20/09, 10:02 AM
miller said...

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but...

"Unfortunately they are all quite below your level, I'm sure. They don't know what's good for them.

I'm pretty sure that the most condescending view of the poor is the one which preaches that the only thing that should matter to them is the price of their consumer goods. "

Uh, major comprehension FAIL.

1. Who are you to tell someone else what they should be doing with their lives?

2. The price of their consumer goods is a major reason the poor are not so poor. In fact, that we are talking about fat POOR is a revolutionary thing -- Jean Valjean, as you recall, was jailed for stealing bread. No one's jailed for stealing food anymore, are they?

9/20/09, 10:28 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Talk about a major comprehension FAIL.

The price of their consumer goods is a major reason the poor are not so poor. In fact, that we are talking about fat POOR is a revolutionary thing -- Jean Valjean, as you recall, was jailed for stealing bread. No one's jailed for stealing food anymore, are they?

They're not fat because of the quantity of food they eat, goofball. They're fat because the most convenient and cheapest food is the least healthy, of horrible quality, loaded with a bunch of artificial (yet fattening) crap that, if you're lucky enough to have a body capable of digesting it, seems to go straight to the adipocytes.

So stop condescending to poor people and telling them that they should measure their quality of life by how fat they are, ok?

9/20/09, 10:39 AM
Chennaul said...

MUL-

I'll gladly hand you -your ass on a platter-of course on the "appropriate" thread.

Your rules-right?

Here something for you to work on in the mean-

The policy-has been in place and successful in more than the immediately obvious ways....

Democrats historically fall prey to the same pattern-and wars of attrition in the future always cost something more dear than the money needed at present to buy votes for the political viability of one-or one party.

Of course it always boils down to the ugly fact that the real enemy of Democrats aren't those of America proper-you hate Republicans above all else.

And that -fellow citizen[?] is and always will be your greatest weakness.

Oh how you loathe those that love their country-

America.

9/20/09, 10:59 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
9/20/09, 11:08 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I'm not a Democrat. Sorry to disappoint.

But anyone who loves his country more than he loves sanity, reason, and the ability to think clearly is a threat to my country: America.

9/20/09, 11:29 AM
Synova said...

"I'm pretty sure that the most condescending view of the poor is the one which preaches that the only thing that should matter to them is the price of their consumer goods."

No. The most condescending view of the poor is that they act contrary to their own interests. And don't we hear that all the time about the relatively unwealthy red fly-over states? What is WRONG with Kansas?

Condescension is passing laws to prohibit fast food stores in poor areas so that poor people are forced to eat in healthier ways.

It's fussing about the evil of Wal-Mart Superstores or those other evil providers of affordable food and clothing, or *gasp* bagged salad greens, somehow taking advantage.

Of course cheap commercial goods are not the only thing that matters to anyone, but it sure does help.

What would help even more would be to reverse our habit of "protecting" poor people by making poverty illegal, passing laws that prohibit it, rather than helping people to produce and build wealth.

9/20/09, 3:49 PM
Synova said...

"So stop condescending to poor people and telling them that they should measure their quality of life by how fat they are, ok?"

Stop condescending to the poor and telling them that they can't be trusted to chose their own food.

Even people who make choices of which you don't approve make them rationally. They decide how much the time and convenience of a Big Mac is worth to them in real terms and they make correct decisions and make rational decisions for the reality of their own life. They make rational decisions about taking the sit-on-your-butt job and the long-commute job over the job that is physically active or the short commute that leaves more time to shop or cook food.

9/20/09, 3:59 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I won't get in the way of your crusade to prove that having the choice to destroy one's body and health is of great importance to the poor, Synova. But I did think this little comment was interesting:

What would help even more would be to reverse our habit of "protecting" poor people by making poverty illegal, passing laws that prohibit it, rather than helping people to produce and build wealth.

I agree with that last part. And making sure that the financial system doesn't fall on everyone's heads again by ignoring the modest regulation that the Busies/GOP could have cared less to institute is crucial to that.

Stop condescending to the poor and telling them that they can't be trusted to chose their own food.

Sure. And you stop condescending to the poor and telling them that the lack of affordable alternatives shouldn't matter to them.

Even people who make choices of which you don't approve make them rationally. They decide how much the time and convenience of a Big Mac is worth to them in real terms and they make correct decisions and make rational decisions for the reality of their own life. They make rational decisions about taking the sit-on-your-butt job and the long-commute job over the job that is physically active or the short commute that leaves more time to shop or cook food.

This is a bit too convoluted for me to make sense of. But it sounds something like: "In life everyone makes perfectly rational decisions about everything they do, but for some reason having the choice to hurt themselves is crucial. No one ever makes an irrational decision. Or if they do, it's only their fault. But it never has anything to do with a lack of available choices, including better alternatives that are at least as convenient."

Sound about right? I hope it does because to me it sounds as incoherent as heck.

9/20/09, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...

So, using the New Rule, if you don't pay significantly more in taxes than you're required to pay, does that mean you can't ever claim that we don't pay enough taxes?

And didn't Maher have a nice little drug habit?

What Maher was doing was pointing out the silliness of fat teabaggers complaining about health care reform. It's called irony

The critics of Maher were being ironic.

Oh, you couldn't keep up?

I never said that what Maher said was ironic or funny.

I quote you in the bold above this.

9/20/09, 8:00 PM
Anonymous said...

I have to ask you Obamatons here a question:

Do you think "teabagger" is clever? Humorous? You're ripping off uber-douche David Schuster, for God's sake.

Wasn't the Left once known for being funny?

Also, out of curiosity --- our President is a smoker. Does he have any business making any calls on health care?

9/20/09, 8:04 PM
miller said...

I know this will seem an amazing & contrary fact, but to point out that poor people can be fat people is to reveal how rich our western civilization has become. Food is absurdly cheap, tastes good, and stores well. Poor people generally don't have to beg in the streets for food (although some do).

That's an astounding change for much of history.

Condescension aside, it points out the fact that American poor people aren't poor *except* in relation to others who are richer. They'd be well-off in most other countries and peoples.

9/20/09, 8:49 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 216 of 216   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)