You know how I’m always ragging on boycotts?

How I call them not a genuine response–which would require actual thought–but instead simply knee-jerk, simplistic punitive thinking?

Well, the purest example of that I’ve seen in a while is currently raging over on Twitter.

Seems during a game where Tim Tebow had just thrown his fourth interception, noted comedian and atheist (always a dangerous combination) Bill Maher tweeted: “Wow, Jesus just f*cked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hëll Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler ‘Hey, Buffalo’s killing them’.

Never mind that everything from the Onion to Saturday Night Live has done far more scathing jokes to the same effect. Never mind that comic Jeff Stilson already covered that concept years ago with his routine of, “Yeah, we were in the game…until Jesus made me fumble. Jesus hates our team.”

No, the collective brain trust of religious conservatives is declaring that HBO should be boycotted because they dare to run his TV show, “Real Time.”

But HBO is also responsible for “True Blood,” “Game of Thrones,” and “Boardwalk Empire,” among others. Why should they all be punished by an across the board boycott?

And he didn’t even SAY it on HBO. He said it on Twitter. So why not boycott Twitter? Because they LIKE Twitter and don’t really want to inconvenience themselves. So why not just unfollow Bill Maher so they don’t have to read what he says?

Because to this sort of mindset, the concepts of tolerance, living and let living, turning the other cheek–all stuff that I seem to recall Jesus was big on–are anathema. Instead they have to do their best to make sure that Maher is punished, isolated, and shoved into some corner where not only they can’t hear him, but no one else can either.

Me, I far prefer to boycott boycotts.

PAD

216 comments on “You know how I’m always ragging on boycotts?

    1. Different strokes, I guess. I’m a loyal member of his public, and I enjoy that he goes after everyone. Your mileage obviously varies. Fair enough.

    2. I think it’s because he’s funny, controversial, engaging, willing to discuss other points of view, and also willing to call out anyone who’s screwing America, liberal or conservative, male or female.
      .
      He has people of all stripes on “Real Time.” From what I’ve seen on that show, I’ve gained respect for some people and lost some for others once they had a chance to present themselves in a relatively public forum.
      .
      He also has no tolerance for sheeple – I respect that too. He seems quite insistent that people think for themselves, instead of blindly following “leaders”, gainsaying any popular and current point of view (rational or not.)
      .
      YMMV, of course.

      1. That’s certainly not how I remember at least one episode of Politically Incorrect. G. Gordon Liddy, Ted Nugent, and Charlton Heston vs. Joy Behar, on gun control?

      2. Close, Michael. It was Elayne Boosler, not Joy Behar. And even at those odds, Maher & Boosler still managed to make the other three look a bit silly. I even enjoyed Boosler’s appearance on the show, and I’m not a fan of her standup by any means.
        .
        One moment I particularly liked was Heston, sitting back, smirk on his face, drawing a parallel between the Second Amendment and the Ten Commandments, saying, “And if anyone here is more qualified to know about the Ten Commandments….” to which Boosler leaned over, patted his hand and said, “Sweetie, that was a role in a movie.”
        .
        –Daryl

    3. Maher comes off as a coward to me, particularly when he’s faced with someone of superior mental acumen, like Christopher Hitchens. His show typically has two left-of-center guests and one token, perceived conservative on it… so it ends up being a 3-on-1 situation. Now, there’s no reason in the world that he would broadcast something like “Jesus fûçkëd Tebow” (and yes, Twitter is a form of broadcasting) except to get himself some controversy and attention. So I choose not to get too excited about it.

      1. Well, Darin, I’ve watched plenty of shows where he has two right-of-center guests with one liberal-to-moderate (not counting the guest who sits on Bill’s left).
        .
        But his show is far more fair to conservatives and right-wingers than anything that appears on FoxNoise when it comes to REAL liberals and progressives.

      2. Tebow doesn’t come off as having bogus piety to me at all. He just happens to be openly Christian.

    4. Maher continues to get gigs because some people enjoy him. There are many, like myself, who are atheist and appreciate a celebrity who has a similar (lack of) belief system.

      1. @Mike: So do you enjoy Maher’s comedy because of bias confirmation or because he’s actually funny?

  1. I’m not big on organized boycotts either, PAD. If a celebrity whose livelihood depends upon being liked by a particular audience says something said audience doesn’t like, that audience will respond with a reduction in support. Anyone who doesn’t believe this can ask Natalie Maines.

    1. You mean the singer whose next album shipped gold (maybe platinum, i forget)?
      .
      Ask Donna Summer, who was a big hit disco diva till she slagged gays, apparently not understanding her market all that well.

    2. No, I mean the singer who cut the Dixie Chicks’ audience in half the year she decided to get political. My point was that organized boycotts are unnecessary given what happens anyway.

      1. Same person. And what happened to the Dixie Chicks was the direct result of organized boycotts.

      2. I remember lots of people calling for organized boycotts… but in the end, that wasn’t necessary. People simply choosing not to buy tickets because they no longer like the entertainer is what took place largely.

      3. Actually, Darin, it’s hard to separate the sales effect out from the on-air ban of Dixie Chick records (someone in the radio business told me that it came down immediately from the higher ups).
        .
        Not that I disagree with the more general point, but I prefer the point be made by the audience, without getting helped along by other channels…

  2. .
    This is the part about I hate most about clowns like this. The people calling for the boycott are not his target audience and (money odds says) not even his viewing audience. It’s not about not listening to someone you disagree with for them, it’s making sure I can’t listen if I want to.
    .
    It’s opinion. It’s his opinion. Others out there may share that opinion. Others out there may find the joke funny. They can’t tolerate that concept and they want him and anyone/anything they see as possible easy targets shut down.
    .
    Hate people like this.

      1. Yes. Exactly. I don’t care for what they’re saying so I’ll not patronize them or listen to their broadcasts.
        .
        How is that not a boycott?
        .
        Or is it only a boycott if a certain number of people are involved?

      2. .
        You can’t be serious, Sean. You really can’t figure out the difference between not liking or agreeing with something and thus not watching it yourself and an organized boycott? I’ll use both the religious nuts and Bill Maher as examples here.
        .
        I find The 700 Club to be ignorant to the extreme and offensive to my intelligence. I find much of what they say when discussing gays to be outright homophobic as well. I think ol’ Pat is a fraud and a con man and will burn in whatever hëll is there for him to burn in and his son doesn’t seem to be much better.
        .
        My solution? I don’t watch the dámņëd thing. You know what isn’t my solution? I don’t stand on street corners holding signs, send out spam emails or start up giant campaigns trying to get other people who do watch it to stop watching. And I certainly don’t try to get everyone who doesn’t bother watching that crap but who does watch the other programs that are on the channel that carries the 700 Club to tell the station that they will boycott all programming on that station unless they drop the 700 Club.
        .
        I just don’t watch it myself.
        .
        I don’t find Bill Maher particularly enjoyable or even at times especially intelligent in his observations on matters. I find that he can take a good idea or concept and just as often as not drive it off a massive cliff of stupidity. I haven’t watched his show in years (even when I still had Dish and the channel he was on) and I don’t buy his books or see his film projects that are designed to be vehicles for his commentary.
        .
        What I do not do is start campaigns to get the channel he’s on to throw him off by threatening a mass boycott of all of their programming. What I do not do is tell friends of mine who do watch his show that they need to stop so that his ratings crash and he can get canceled.
        .
        Can you really not see the difference in those actions on your own?

      3. So tell me, Jerry, just what is the difference. Because in taking me to task for things I didn’t say you’ve managed to avoid answering that question I did actually pose.
        .
        If I chose not to watch something I find objectionable that’s OK, but if I try to persuade others to agree with me then it’s a boycott and a bad thing? What if I only try to persuade my best friend, that OK as long as I don’t try to convince 1000 of my best friends?
        .
        You don’t want to “start up giant campaigns trying to get other people who do watch it to stop watching”, fine. But why can’t I?
        .
        Note, nowhere in my original 40-ish word comment did I call for boycotting all the programming on a station (but thank’s for taking me to task for it anyway). Nor have I ever advocated “TELL[ING] friends of mine who do watch his show that they NEED to stop”.
        .
        You’re reply suggests you have the same apparent knee-jerk reaction to the word “boycott” that our host seems to demonstrate.

      4. To be clear here: I’m asking you to explain the difference between 1 person choosing not to watch and a larger number.
        .
        The difference between choosing not to watch the objectionable show and calling for all programming on the station to be avoided is obvious and, despite it being the topic of your tirade, had nothing to do with what I said.

      5. .
        “Yes. Exactly. I don’t care for what they’re saying so I’ll not patronize them or listen to their broadcasts.
        .
        How is that not a boycott?
        .
        Or is it only a boycott if a certain number of people are involved?”
        .
        That’s the question you asked and I answered the question you asked. Even if you would like to redefine the question a bit now, it still won’t change the answer.
        .
        You just choosing not to watch something because you either don’t like it or disagree with what is being regularly espoused on the program is just you exercising your choice. The programming isn’t to your personal tastes and you’re just following those personal tastes. You deciding that you’re going to organize a campaign to get others to not watch, not buy products advertised on that show and/or let the station know that your group will also stop watching other programming on the station until the offending programming is gone is a boycott.
        .
        Pretty easy to understand distinction between the two things.
        .
        “Note, nowhere in my original 40-ish word comment did I call for boycotting all the programming on a station (but thank’s for taking me to task for it anyway).”
        .
        Note, in the original post, the one Peter made up top, that this particular action is one of the actions being brought up by the group going after Maher.
        .
        PAD: “No, the collective brain trust of religious conservatives is declaring that HBO should be boycotted because they dare to run his TV show, “Real Time.””
        .
        Since you asked how a boycott is different than just you not watching on your own in a thread where we’re discussing a specific group and what they’re doing to organize a boycott, I assumed that you had read Peter’s opening post and included the actions of the boycott in question in the answer. Sorry if that confused you.
        .
        “You don’t want to “start up giant campaigns trying to get other people who do watch it to stop watching”, fine. But why can’t I?”
        .
        You can if you want. And you you would then be a dìçk.
        .
        Seriously (again,) you have to ask why some people see that as wrong?
        .
        You can’t figure out why people would think you’re in the wrong for deciding that you don’t like something on TV and, rather than simply deciding not to watch it yourself, you’re going to try and make that decision for the rest of us if we happen to like it? You can’t figure out why people may not think you’re such a great guy because you think that your not watching isn’t enough and you want to make sure that no one else can watch?
        .
        The two concepts are not even remotely the same and one wonders how anyone can be even slightly confused on the matter of how they’re at all different concepts.

      6. You’re so opposed to the idea of boycotts that you see things that aren’t there, and then object to my saying things I’ve never said.
        .
        Never said I’d “stand on street corners holding signs, send out spam emails or start up giant campaigns”. Never said I’d “organize a campaign to get others to … not buy products advertised on that show and/or let the station know that your group will also stop watching other programming on the station until the offending programming is gone”
        .
        And despite your insistence that you have, you haven’t answered the question I actually did ask.
        .
        You acknowledge it’s OK for me to individually stop watching a show I find objectionable. Is it OK if I talk to my friend and try to get him to agree it’s an objectionable show that he has no interest in watching? Is it ok if two of us decide to not watch? What if I also convince my wife, is it ok if three decide to stop watching? Is it OK if I get into a conversation with a group of friends and manage to convince them? What if I do decide to stand on a street corner and advocate for people to stop watching this show?
        .
        Or ar you going to tell me it’s wrong somehow for me to express an opinion publicly and try to persuade others to agree with me?

      7. Jerry: “Pretty easy to understand distinction between the two things.
        .
        Yes. Pity one of those two things isn’t anything I ever said.
        .
        Sean: “To be clear here: I’m asking you to explain the difference between 1 person choosing not to watch and a larger number.

      8. Note, in the original post, the one Peter made up top, that this particular action is one of the actions being brought up by the group going after Maher.
        .
        Yet you ascribe THEIR words to ME.
        .
        Like I did say: You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word “boycott” that a causes you to irrationally see anyone who uses it as you want them to be rather than as they are.

      9. .
        Sean, at this point you’re just being dense for the sake of being dense. If you can’t figure out when personal choice ends and a boycott begins by now then you likely never will.
        .
        Have a Happy New Year.

      10. .
        “Yet you ascribe THEIR words to ME.”
        .
        No, you idiot, I did not ascribe anything to you. I gave you examples of when something starts leaving the realm of personal choice and moving into the realm of boycott. No where, no where in any of my posts did I say that you did these things, are doing these things or wanted to do these things.
        .
        Go buy a dámņëd clue already.

      11. Jerry: “Since you asked how a boycott is different than just you not watching on your own …
        .
        Nope. Not what I asked.
        .
        You can if you want. And you you would then be a dìçk.”
        .
        Good to know. In your opinion my exercising my 1st Ammendent rights to say “I believe this show is objectionable and I won’t watch it and I will try to convince you to agree with me and do the same.” makes me a dìçk.
        .
        And in my opinion, you’re claiming I actually said I will spam eveyone in the world and tell them they have to set fire to the network’s offices because they dared broadcast this show makes you the real dìçk. Oh, what? You never said that? Well whaddaya know. Well, I said you said it, so I guess that still makes you a dìçk, right?
        .
        That how this is supposed to work?
        .
        —-
        .
        rather than simply deciding not to watch it yourself, you’re going to try and make that decision for the rest of us if we happen to like it? … and you want to make sure that no one else can watch?
        .
        Again, show me any place where I said I was going to make a decision for anyone else or where I was going to make sure nobody else could. The thing you’re objecting to. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
        .
        Or, you can continue to tell me I said things I didn’t. Which would be rather dickish, wouldn’t i?

      12. Jerry, at this point you’re just being dense for the sake of being dense. If you can’t figure out the difference between asking folks to exercise their personal choice ends and calling for a punative economic boycott begins by now then you likely never will.

        Happy New Year to you, too.

      13. Jerry: “I gave you examples of when something starts leaving the realm of personal choice and moving into the realm of boycott.
        .
        There. You make no distinction between 10,000 peopl choosing to exercise their personal choice and not watch a show and folks advocating the economic ruination of the network. To you, “Boycott” means the latter only. Hence your reaction to the use of the word that blinded you to what I was saying.

      14. .
        Sean, you asked what the difference is between what you were talking about, basically your personal choice and maybe influencing a few friends, and a boycott. I gave you examples of when and how you (and, i should explain here since you can’t seem to work it out on your own that this is a generic “you” and not you, Sean D, Martin himself) then crossing into boycott land.
        .
        You not watching is exercising personal choice. You talking about that choice and the reason for it with family and a few friends and them making that same choice on their own is not a boycott. If, and please pay attention to the f’n concept being presented by the use of the word IF, you or some other person moved on to do any of the things that I explained above would be the actions of a boycott and, by those action, tried to take away my choice to watch, see, read or hear the thing that you didn’t like, you’re now in a boycott.
        .
        Again, I’m not saying that you want to do this. I’m not saying you will do this. I’m not saying you said any of these things. You seem to have a desire to read what someone lays out as an example of what makes a boycott and determine that they are in fact claiming that you have been, are doing or will be doing these things, but I’m not saying that.
        .
        I am saying that what you described falls under personal choice and when someone engages in the activities that I presented as examples of what’s involved in a boycott with the intent to impose their personal choice on others, then they’re involved in a boycott and not simply exercising personal choice.
        .
        But either way, I’m through with this at this point. You are either being deliberately obtuse and a jáçkášš here and you’re just too dámņëd stupid to figure out a very basic concept that the average ten year old could have grasped by now.

      15. Jerry: “Sean, you asked what the difference is between what you were talking about, basically your personal choice and maybe influencing a few friends, and a boycott.
        .
        There. Right there, in your opening sentence, you demonstrate again that you are just not getting it. That you are insistently NOT understanding what I’ve said, rather clearly I think, several times.
        .
        I was pointedly NOT asking the difference between my influencing a few friends and a boycott. I WAS asking at what number does people exercising their personal choice become a “boycott”.
        .
        My point was that a boycott is not an intrinsically bad thing. That there is a knee-jerk reaction to the word which you have demonstrated so well.
        .
        Boycott: transitive verb
        : to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
        .
        People, even in very large numbers, exercising their personal choice to stop watching a show is a boycott. People calling for this are organizing a boycott.
        .
        They are not calling for punitive or economic sanctions against the entire network. Yet use the word “boycott” and that’s all you see someone calling for despite numerous attempts to clearly explain that is not the case.

      16. .
        “They are not calling for punitive or economic sanctions against the entire network. Yet use the word “boycott” and that’s all you see someone calling for despite numerous attempts to clearly explain that is not the case.”
        .
        Sorry, but, again, you’re wrong. They’re trying to get people to stop watching all programming on the channel so long as Maher’s show is on the channel. That hist the channel’s ratings and ratings = money.
        .
        HBO isn’t a charity operation. They don’t just give away programming and they don’t broker deals to be carried by cable and satellite providers based on some odd whim of whatever they think sound good.
        .
        They make deals by pointing to the ratings that their programming gets and that their overall average ranks in cable. In that respect, pay cable channels are the same as cable and network TV. Their ratings make them their money and if you try and undercut their ratings you hit them in the pocketbook.
        .
        So, yes, they are calling for punitive or economic sanctions against the entire network.

      17. .
        Seriously, Sean, did you think that ratings mean absolutely nothing to channels like HBO or Showtime? Did it never occur to you that HBO and Showtime cancel shows for low ratings for a reason other than whim?
        .
        I’m just at a complete loss as to how you thought that hurting a channel’s overall ratings was not an attempt to hurt their income.

      18. Sorry, but, again, you’re wrong. They’re trying to get people to stop watching all programming on the channel so long as Maher’s show is on the channel.
        .
        Sorry, Jerry, but, again, you’re wrong. You’re consistently ignoring what I’m saying and insisting on ascribing to me what those opposed to Maher’s program are doing.
        .
        And you do it while actually quoting my own words, which is impressive.
        .
        I’m giving an example. The people I’m referring to are those doing what I’m describing in my example (stopping watching one show without calling for network wide economic sanctions). Yet you keep claiming I’m talking about the people PAD brought up who are trying to “get” the whole network.
        .
        And despite my repeated attempts, you continue to insist that I’m talking about folks I’m not talking about.
        .
        Can we get on the same page here?

      19. Seriously, Sean, did you think that ratings mean absolutely nothing to channels like HBO or Showtime? Did it never occur to you that HBO and Showtime cancel shows for low ratings for a reason other than whim?
        .
        I’m just at a complete loss as to how you thought that hurting a channel’s overall ratings was not an attempt to hurt their income.

        .
        Seriously, Jerry. Are you now suggesting that I (and thousands of my close friends) can’t be allowed to stop watching the show because if we do (in large enough numbers) its would cost the network economically?
        .
        So we’re not allowed to call for an economically punitive boycott of the entire network (which, again, was never what I was advocating) but we’re also not allowed to exercise personal choice and just stop watching that one offensive show (which I was advocating as a reasonable and legitimate course).
        .
        Because anything that would hurt the network’s bottom line is a no-no, I guess.
        .
        Seriously, Jerry. Carefully read what you just wrote and tell me if that isn’t where you’re headed.

      20. .
        “So we’re not allowed to call for an economically punitive boycott of the entire network (which, again, was never what I was advocating) but we’re also not allowed to exercise personal choice and just stop watching that one offensive show (which I was advocating as a reasonable and legitimate course).
        .
        Because anything that would hurt the network’s bottom line is a no-no, I guess.
        .
        Seriously, Jerry. Carefully read what you just wrote and tell me if that isn’t where you’re headed.”

        .
        Nope.
        .
        I’m not getting anywhere near there. Anyone who thinks that I am getting anywhere near there would have to be a first class moron. I’ve even said repeatedly now that simply deciding that you have no desire to watch something, whether it’s because you find it boring, stupid and/or offensive, is simply the free exercise of your personal taste and judgement and just fine and dandy. You discussing your dislike of a show (or whatever) with friends or coworkers and then, by simple discussion with them, persuading some of them that the show isn’t something they want to watch either is not the action of a boycott and just fine and dandy. Those people even discussing their new POV on it with friends, family or coworkers and convincing a few of them that their new POV is the correct course to follow is not a boycott and just fine and dandy.
        .
        You may have noticed this before now, but I’ve never used not watching something as a synonym for boycotting something. I don’t watch Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld on Fox News. I find in inanely stupid even by Fox News standards. I’ve said this here before. I find MSNBC’s The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell to be almost offensive in its stupidity and I don’t watch it. I’ve mentioned this before as well. Never have I stated that I’m boycotting either program. The concepts are not interchangeable.
        .
        You may have also noticed a distinct absence in my posts of the past to refer to low ratings as the action of a boycott. You may, as an example, have noticed my lamenting the fact that so few people liked Firefly enough to keep it on the air and that so few people went to see Serenity that it bombed and killed a possible film franchise. Somehow, I managed to not confuse the one concept for the other and refer to how much of a shame it was that all those people out there boycotted Firefly and Serenity. And oddly, in a country with over 300 million people, I’ve somehow never suggested that 298 million people were boycotting a TV show that only had 2 million viewers.
        .
        And why have I never done this strange thing? Why have I never angrily called people just not liking something enough to tune in a boycott? Well, as I’ve now said above more times than most people would normally need to in order for someone else to comprehend it and despite your assertion that I’m suggesting or moving towards the idea that people are not allowed to exercise personal choice and just stop watching something offensive without being accused of boycotting it, I have absolutely no issue with you or anyone else not watching something that you or they don’t like. Not one single problem with it at all. And, and try not to get confused by this concept here, I don’t consider that action a boycott.
        .
        Going all the way back to the beginning of this giant example of you not being able to grasp simple concepts, I and most people I know do not consider one person or 300 million people simply opting to not watch something based on their own personal tastes to be a boycott. It only crosses into boycott territory, whether its one person, ten people or a million people, when they take such specific steps as the ones I’ve discussed above and that have been discussed on this blog before when specifically discussing boycotts.
        .
        It’s a boycott if a person or a group of people (and, please, do try and not get confused and do try to note that I am not ascribing these actions to you or your hypothetical people and am simply laying out as an example what actions change something from being choice to being a boycott) do some or all of the following –
        .
        – Starts a letter writing or email campaign to get mass numbers of people to stop watching
        .
        – Informs advertisers that they will not buy products advertised on that show or the network that carries that show
        .
        – Informs the people in charge of the show that they are refusing to watch their product or patronize products advertised on that show because of material they dislike or are offended by and that they are organizing others to do the same
        .
        – Informs the network that carries the show of these actions and activities
        .
        – Declares that they will organize people to not watch a channel at all so long as one specific person is employed there or a specific program is on it.
        .
        – Mobilizes their organized campaign to be seen by the press or actually send information to the press explaining what they are doing and why
        .
        – And, and this is a big one, their actions would be specifically designed to get something cancelled and that would be your stated goal. It’s not simply the passive act of not watching something and, by no other action on their part, the show gets canceled due to low ratings. In a boycott, their stated goal is getting something off the air and their not simply just not watching it. And they are in a very big way acting towards…
        .
        – Imposing their personal choice on others who do not agree with them. They are not by a passive act just not contributing to ratings success of a show. they are actively going after the show and/or its sponsors and they are letting the people behind the show, the channel that airs it, the show’s sponsors and others of their intention to get the show off of the air and, by doing that, attempting to take away from me my right to choose whether or not I want to see the thing or not. They are deciding that their act of not watching because they don’t want to is not enough. They are going beyond that action and attempting to make sure that no one else can watch a show or person because they don’t like the show or its contents.
        .
        There are other things as well, but no where in there will you find just deciding that you don’t like something and not watching it. No where in there will you find casually discussing your POV with friends, family and/or coworkers and convincing the odd person that you’re right and converting them to your POV.
        .
        For something to be considered a boycott, whether it’s a failed attempt at a boycott or a full on actual boycott and whether it’s one person or one hundred million people, certain steps beyond just not liking it and deciding that you don’t care to watch it have to be taken.
        .
        And it’s really not a hard concept to grasp. It’s really an amazingly simple thing to comprehend, no matter the numbers of people involved, the difference between someone exercising their choice in viewing material and organizing or participating in a boycott with the expressed goal of getting something taken off the air and making sure that nobody else can see/enjoy it.
        .
        I don’t like Red Eye or The Last word. I don’t watch them. I don’t give any more thought to it than that. I don’t think about whether or not they will stay on the air or not or whether or not they will continue to be as stupid as the currant audiences enjoy them being. I personally don’t care if they’re so successful that they’re on for the next ten years or if they die a ratings death by tomorrow and I don’t care if they do well in the ratings because other people are watching them and being fed the two shows’ political messages. I just don’t watch.
        .
        That’s not me boycotting them. That’s just my choice and my tastes.
        .
        If I started doing, whether successfully or not, any of the things I just listed above in this post with the expressed intent of getting something canceled and pulled form the air, I’m no longer just exercising my choice in my viewing habits. I’m trying to take your right to tune in to those programs (or not) away from you and others.
        .
        The people going after Bill Maher over this are not just choosing to not watch. They are organizing a campaign to threaten the channel that carries him that has the expressed goal of removing him from the air and making sure that no one else can watch him either. They are taking active steps towards making their personal choice and preference the only choice for everyone else out there. They are engaging in a boycott.
        .
        Most ten year olds that I know could grasp this concept by now. Why can’t you?

      21. .
        You know, Sean, this seems to be an extremely confusing issue for you. You seem to get even more confused when you throw theoreticals out there because if anyone else uses a theoretical argument back at you, you take that as them attributing words or actions to you that aren’t yours. Mayeb, maybe, we can explain this to you in a way that you can finally get it if we avoid your theoreticals all together, not add additional theoreticals and just deal with the definition that you yourself provided and, one assumes, you therefore agree with and several real world things that have nothing to do with you, your theoreticals or even the original source inspiration for the topic.
        .
        “Boycott: transitive verb : to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions” (Emphasis mine.)
        .
        Please take note that last bit there. A boycott is usually done to “express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.”
        .
        We will use as an example AMC’s The Walking Dead.
        .
        AMC is quite happy with the show. It pulls in around 6 million viewers and is their highest rated program. Now, while 6 million people are tuning in to TWD on AMC, there’s a staggering number of people out there who are during the hour that TWD is on are tuning in to other channels that are not AMC and watching programs that are now TWD. I don’t know the what the actual number is, but we’ll use 50 million people as the figure for this.
        .
        So, while 6 million people are watching TWD, 50 million people are not watching TWD and are in fact watching other programs instead. Those 50 million people are not boycotting TWD and I think I can safely say that no one here, certainly not me and very likely not the host of this blog, are going to suggest that they are. Why? Well, for one big thing, they’re not choosing to not watch TWD and instead choosing to watch other things in order to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions of, about or towards TWD or AMC.
        .
        If those 50 million people who are not watching it are expressing anything at all, it’s disinterest and/or indifference. Expressing disinterest and/or indifference is not the same in any way, shape or form as expressing disapproval or trying to force acceptance of certain conditions.
        .
        And, before you jump up and get confused because you want to say that not watching a show because you don’t like it is expressing disapproval… It’s not. It’s certainly not a way of expressing approval, but just not liking something is not automatically expressing disapproval.
        .
        In a very real way, it’s not “expressing” anything at all. It’s certainly not sending a message to the people at AMC or TWD. They already knew that not everyone out there is a horror fan, not every horror fan is a zombie fan and that not every zombie fan out there likes their zombie horror in the form of character driven, survival horror instead of blood, guts, gore and action zombie horror. They knew before the first episode aired that they were not going to have every person watching TV during the hours that TWD airs watching TWD and nothing else.
        .
        What might be a boycott? What might be an example of someone expressing disapproval?
        .
        Peter writes comics and books with fair regularity. He knows full well (when thinking realistically) that every single reader of comics and books out there are not going to run out and buy his work. I doubt he thinks thoughts about how horrible they all are for boycotting his work. He may think thoughts about how horrible people are because of their poor tastes and buying habits, but I seriously doubt he’s dámņìņg people who don’t by his works because the works are not to their tastes as people engaged in a boycott of his work.
        .
        There is however, the odd person or two who do engage in activities that are designed to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.
        .
        Peter, as you may have noticed, has a blog. On this blog, he has been known to discuss the odd political matter or social issue. In those discussions, he has the occasional tendency to make his personal POV on an issue known.
        .
        And, as a result of that, some people have gotten upset with him. People have posted on this very blog that they like his work, but the will no longer buy any new Peter David books because of his stated position on an issue he’s discussed here. Peter has had people write letters to his employers explaining that they will not by the specific titles that he’s on (and I think in a few cases, stated that they will not buy any more of that publisher’s books) for so long as he’s employed with them.
        .
        That’s a boycott. That’s someone not buying a product and doing so to express disapproval about something.
        .
        You remember the kerfuffle from the Scans Daily and Eric Holder “Act of Cowardice” threads? Have you seen Peter explain his opinion of online piracy sites? He doesn’t like them. As a result of those threads, some of the things involved in what sparked those threads and his opinion on internet piracy, he’s had people tell him here and via email that they’re upset with him and won’t buy his books anymore. Some have said that they will no longer support his works because they’ve decided (wrongly) that he’s a racist (expressing disapproval) or until such a time as he “embraces the future of publishing” and changes his stand on things out there like Scans Daily or on internet sites that are outright and full internet piracy sites (trying to force acceptance of certain conditions.)
        .
        Those people, whether on their own or as a group, are engaging in a boycott. They’re not deciding that they won’t buy Peter’s work because they dislike it or are indifferent to it. They’re refusing to buy or support works by Peter for reasons outside of just dislike of the materials in question and then they are actually taking the steps of telling Peter and/or his employers what they are doing and why they are doing it and in some cases trying to organize others to do the same.
        .
        I’m going to go back to both Bill Maher and my comments about the 700 Club as an example in the difference between actions that make boycotts and actions that do not equate to a boycott.
        .
        I don’t like the 700 Club. I dislike the content. I have an extreme dislike of much of the content. I don’t watch it. That’s pretty much the end of my activities in regards to the 700 Club. I might bring it up as an example of things I dislike and find truly stupid in discussions like this, but other than that I don’t concern myself with discussing it and just don’t bother watching it. That, the not watching it, is the only thing I or others not involved in the activity known as a boycott have anything in common. Here’s a quick couple of lists for you to mull over.
        .
        — List #1 – Things That The People Boycotting Bill Maher and I Have In Common —
        .
        (1) I’m not watching the 700 Club. They’re not watching Bill Maher.
        .
        That’s it. Short list.
        .
        — List #2 – Things That The People Boycotting Bill Maher and I Do Not Have In Common —
        .
        (1) They are trying to convince people who might be watching Bill Maher to stop watching it. I’m not trying to get other people to stop watching the 700 Club.
        .
        (2)They’re making their reason for this action known to the people behind Bill Maher’s show. I’m not trying to tell the people behind the 700 Club why I don’t watch their show.
        .
        (3) They’re telling HBO that they will refuse to watch any HBO show so long as HBO gives Bill Maher and his show a home. I’m not telling the local channel that carries the 700 Club that I will not watch any program on it because they give the 700 club a home.
        .
        (4) They’re telling HBO that they’re going to engage in a large scale action to get many, many other people to also stop watching any HBO programming while they continue to air Bill Maher’s show. Again, I’m telling the channel that carries the 700 Club no such thing (and nothing at all about it for that matter.)
        .
        (5) They are doing this to financial hurt Bill Maher and HBO because they don’t like what Bill Maher says. I’m not doing anything of the kind with regards to the 700 Club or the channel that airs it.
        .
        (6) Their stated goal, their end game and their only desired outcome for this action is to get Bill Maher’s show canceled. They’re not simply not watching it with zero concern as to the continued existence of the show. They’re not just skipping watching the show and not caring if it continues on with healthy enough ratings to have additional season renewed by HBO down the road. They want to kill the show dead and make sure that no one else can see it. I could give a rat’s ášš if the 700 Club folds up shop tomorrow or goes on for so long that it’s ultimately hosted by cockroaches and shown for cockroaches well after the nuclear apocalypse that wipes out everything but the cockroaches.
        .
        How on Earth can there be the slightest bit of confusion on anyone’s part as to the differences between simply not watching something because it’s not your cup of tea and calling for a boycott of it? Where is the similarities in these two actions that so mirror each other that they look alike to anyone looking at them?
        .
        “Sean D. Martin – December 28, 2011 at 9:27 pm – Yes. Exactly. I don’t care for what they’re saying so I’ll not patronize them or listen to their broadcasts.”
        .
        Which is not a boycott. What these people want to do to Bill Maher and HBO is a boycott. What’s been done to greater or lesser degree to Peter have been at least threatened or attempted boycotts. Actually open your eyes and look at the things you’re talking about and what these people are actually doing and look at the differences. It’s not like they’re even remotely alike.
        .
        “If I chose not to watch something I find objectionable that’s OK, but if I try to persuade others to agree with me then it’s a boycott and a bad thing? What if I only try to persuade my best friend, that OK as long as I don’t try to convince 1000 of my best friends?
        .
        You don’t want to “start up giant campaigns trying to get other people who do watch it to stop watching”, fine. But why can’t I?”
        .
        You can do whatever you want to do. However, if you’re trying to threaten a station or the people behind the show and get it thrown off the air and canceled and thus taking away from me the option of watching it if I want to… You’re a dìçk. You’re taking the step away from making a personal choice for yourself and attempting to take away my ability to choose for myself and you’re doing it as a calculated effort and not simply by being one of the many tuning out out of indifference to what’s being presented.
        .
        And with that, I’m 100% done here. If you can’t figure out the difference between a boycott and just not bothering to watch something by now and why so many people dislike people organizing boycotts, well, you never will at this point. Have the last word. Have the last 1,000 words. I’m done with this.

      22. But either way, I’m through with this at this point.
        .
        As accurate a statement as many you’ve made.
        .
        S’okay, tho. I’m through with this thread.

    1. “I know there are people on this Earth who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!”
      — T. Lehrer (ret.)

  3. HBO is part of Time Warner which is a sponsor of SOPA, aren’t they? Surely that’s a good reason for a boycott, whatever comedians say.

  4. Maher has been saying the dumbest things for years now, even getting himself fired from ABC for calling the 911 terrorist brave.

    He thinks he knows about politics and some news outlets take him seriously but he makes himself sound stupid every time he opens his mouth. He says the most outrageous and sometime offensive things and hides behind the “well I’m a comedian and it’s a joke” shield.

    He been getting away with it for years because it’s deemed cool to attack conservatives, Catholics and christians.

    All that being said, I still respect his freedom of speech and appalled him for it.

    In many other countries Maher would have been jailed or worse. So I’m glad he speaks his mind and is allowed here in the U.S.

    If you want to boycott his show and his twitter page, well that’s your right to, but don’t boycott HBO.

    1. Jose: Well, he IS a comedian and it IS a joke. People need to take seriously the things that idiots like Newt Gingrich say because they’re advocating that they should be made the most powerful man in the road and provided the launch codes. Plus the prospect of reactionary morons sitting down in meetings with powerful heads of other states is anathema to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
      .
      He’s “getting away with it” for years because he’s funny, period. It has nothing to do with his targets; as a regular watcher of “Real Time,” for instance, I’ve seen him go after people on all sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives, and particularly conservative Christians, paint this bizarre picture where everyone is out to get them, and it’s not based in actuality or anything that’s demonstrable; it’s just this strange self-obsession that typically runs counter to reality. Like: “Oh my God, there’s a war on Christmas! People have forgotten the religious foundations of this country!” If we really went back to the religious foundations of this country, December 25th would not be a holiday, everyone would be working, and if someone were caught celebrating Christmas, they’d be severely punished by the village elders who had no patience for a “holy day” that wasn’t in the Bible.
      .
      I’m glad your head’s in the right place regarding boycotts, but really, did you ever think that Maher’s voicing his opinions the way he does is his means of celebrating the fact that he lives in a country where, as you say, if he said these things in other places, he’d be jailed?
      .
      PAD

      1. PAD: You do know that Channukah isn’t mentioned in the Bible either :)? (Well not in the Jewish Bible at any rate. There’s some Sadduccee fan fiction that somehow made it into Mel Gibson’s Bible.)

      2. Chanukah is an utterly minor holiday. There are many Jewish holidays you’ve likely never heard of that are far more important. The only reason it’s been blown up to such proportions in this country is because Jewish parents were tired of their kids complaining that all the Christian kids were getting presents and they were getting nothing.
        .
        PAD

      3. Peter: Maher does blur the line between comedy and political commentary.

        I herd him once say on CNN, “what i say is funny because it’s true”.

        Only watched his show a few times but Maher has admitted he is a liberal and he mainly attacks conservatives, there is nothing wrong with that. If he went after both sides, he would be boring and not on TV.

        I don’t know if he was being funny on twitter or not and sometimes jokes do offend.

        He didn’t offend me and I don’t think he is funny at all.

        Commentary or joke, it doesn’t matter, Maher just like Frank Miller have the right to say what they feel and people have the right to get offended and complain about them.

        I don’t agree with boycotting Frank Miller or Bill Maher but if people want to do that, well I guess they have a right to.

        I disagree with both men but I respect their right to speak their mind, I wish I was so bold sometimes but I’m not. LOL

        So we’ll disagree on Maher being funny but we both agree he is important in our society.

        This is just my opinion but committing suicide and take the lives of thousands of people is not even close to being brave, but I guess we can go back and forth all day long on that, I won’t.

        Roger Gray

        “Catholics and christians” “Interesting distinction.”

        Yup, I wrote that because being an Atheist I really don’t know much about religion, if I got it wrong, sorry.

      4. .
        Jose.S: “If he went after both sides, he would be boring and not on TV.”
        .
        Where the hëll does this dumb idea come from and why won’t it die the quick death it deserves from people actually thinking for 0.5 seconds about it before saying or writing it. It’s one of the most easily disprovable talking points out there.
        .
        South Park – Funny, popular, on TV and goes after both sides.
        .
        The Daily Show – Funny, popular, on TV and goes after both sides.
        .
        The Colbert Report – Funny, popular, on TV and goes after both sides.
        .
        SNL pokes fun at both sides – Funny, popular, on TV and goes after both sides.
        .
        Carson, Leno, Letterman, Conan and others have spent decades lampooning both sides in their opening bits. They were all funny, all popular and all of them have/had solid TV runs.
        .
        Mad TV and In Living Color went after both sides. Both had good runs and were funny, popular and (more so In Living Color) oft quoted.
        .
        In the funny pages, Doonesbury has ripped on both sides for years now. Popular, funny and very successful.
        .
        What do you get if you do have a show or strip where the POV is to just rip on one side? You get an unfunny bomb of a Fox News comedy show getting low ratings and cancellation or a painfully boring comic strip featuring a duck and lame, one note comedy.
        .
        The successful ones are the ones that gore both sides and the more equal opportunity they are in attacking both sides the bigger they are.
        .
        And let me give you two more words to help support my side of this discussion and my POV here.
        .
        – George Carlin –

      5. Lets be honest, he said he goes after conservatives more, or did you not read that part?
        Of course, if you’re a liberal you would think he goes after both sides.
        Have you seen any of his appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Jay Leno?
        I have no problem saying I’m a liberal and that forms most of my opinions neither does Bill Maher, I guess some people still have those problems.

        There is a reason conservatives don’t like the guy and liberals love him.
        An objective person who has seen Maher’s appearances on other shows besides his own, knows he goes after conservatives, he admits it and he’s ok with that, so I’m I.

        “Where the hëll does this dumb idea come from”?

        Fox News and MSNBC both have both strong political opinions and have higher ratings then the middle of the road opinionated CNN.

        That’s where the idea comes from, facts.

      6. .
        Jose.S: “Lets be honest, he said he goes after conservatives more, or did you not read that part?”
        .
        Uhmmm…..
        .
        PAD: “It has nothing to do with his targets; as a regular watcher of “Real Time,” for instance, I’ve seen him go after people on all sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives, and particularly conservative Christians, paint this bizarre picture where everyone is out to get them, and it’s not based in actuality or anything that’s demonstrable”
        .
        No, I didn’t read “that part.” I didn’t read “that part” because, outside of your most recent post, it doesn’t exist. He said that Maher goes after people on all sides of the political spectrum and in that statement he is correct. If you would like to present an argument against what he actually said and what I happen to agree with, then feel free to do so. If you’re going to argue against something neither of us said and claim that one or the other of us did say it… well… it’s going to be a short discussion because you’re going to quickly find yourself talking to yourself.
        .
        Jose.S: “Of course, if you’re a liberal you would think he goes after both sides. Have you seen any of his appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Jay Leno?”
        .
        Yes, yes I have. I’ve even seen the odd episode of his more recent shows. He goes after both sides. He even ridicules Obama when he said the standard political BS lines. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IxH-rSI3hM
        .
        Jose.S: “There is a reason conservatives don’t like the guy and liberals love him.”
        .
        I don’t like the guy. I disagree with your assessment of him.
        .
        Jose.S: “An objective person who has seen Maher’s appearances on other shows besides his own, knows he goes after conservatives, he admits it and he’s ok with that, so I’m I.”
        .
        Okay, see… You’re doing it again. I freely admit that he goes after conservatives. Peter said that he goes after conservatives. Every person in this thread will likely tell you quite happily that he goes after conservatives and no one here has said that he doesn’t go after conservatives. He does however, go after other targets as well.
        .
        Jose.S: ““Where the hëll does this dumb idea come from?”
        Fox News and MSNBC both have both strong political opinions and have higher ratings then the middle of the road opinionated CNN.
        That’s where the idea comes from, facts.”
        .
        Okay, now your starting to jump the shark here insofar as how much you can shift the subject to try and claim that you’re correct in what you’re saying.
        .
        We’re talking about someone who has made their rep as a comedian who does satirical political commentary. Even the tweet that started this was his attempt at being funny. We’re not talking about someone claiming to be a reporter doing hard news. Thus the reason that I gave examples of shows in that vein and didn’t point out things like the NBC evening news.
        .
        And your “facts” are questionable. You point to the ratings of CNN, MSNBC and Fox and declare a fact without proof of it being there. But let’s pretend for half a moment that you’re right and your example of ratings actually means what you say it does.
        .
        NBC, CBS and ABC’s evening news broadcasts simply report the news and play the middle ground far, far more often than they don’t. Any one of them alone dwarfs the ratings of the highest rated show on Fox News and all three combined make the combined ratings of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News look insignificant. So, by your logic and the argument you just made, you’re absolutely and indisputably wrong. More people are tuning into to the programming that is “middle of the road opinionated” if not leaving opinion out all together than are tuning in to see the “strong political opinions” of the cable news talking idiots.
        .
        And, again, it does not address the simple fact that all of the examples I cited and more that have as a form of entertainment gored all sides of the political spectrum and not just picked one side and went after it have been and continue to be the most successful and popular shows (or comic strips) of their kind and the ones that pick just one side to fight for are barely a blip on the pop-culture radar at best and canceled at worst. In other words, exactly the opposite of what you said above.
        .
        Facts.

      7. “If you would like to present an argument against what he actually said and what I happen to agree with, then feel free to do so.”
        I’m just stating what Bill has said for many years now, you arguing with him not me.

        “No, I didn’t read “that part.” I didn’t read “that part” because, outside of your most recent post, it doesn’t exist.”
        I wrote on my post at at 335pm and you responded at 641pm and your last post was at 844pm.
        So it did exist

        Fox News and MSNBC do have higher ratings then CNN, that’s a pretty easy one to prove if you read news.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/cable-news-ratings-2011-top-programs-year_n_1173415.html?ref=media#s578255&title=1_The_OReilly

        “We’re talking about someone who has made their rep as a comedian who does satirical political commentary.”
        Well then you haven’t been watching enough TV, Bill Maher has been on serious news shows, so all of his opinions are not from a comedic point of view. Again, some people do find some jokes offensive.

        “NBC, CBS and ABC’s evening news broadcasts simply report the news and play the middle ground far, far more often than they don’t. Any one of them alone dwarfs the ratings of the highest rated show on Fox News and all three combined make the combined ratings of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News look insignificant. So, by your logic and the argument you just made, you’re absolutely and indisputably wrong.”

        Your ABC, NBC and CBS comparisons don’t make sense, Bill Maher is cable not network TV.
        Why should I address some of your examples when you only address a few of mine and some of your examples have admitted they have a liberal point of view.

        Yup, I feel like I am arguing with myself because you’re only selecting what you want from my post.
        I have a feeling you even if you’re wrong, and you are, you can go all night long. Well I won’t.

        Gee now I know why I don’t post much, people just like to go round and round with incorrect statements, they just don’t know when to leave it alone and they like to have pointless arguments all night.

        I’m done for the night this argument is pointless, we’ll just disagree.

      8. .
        Jose.S,
        .
        I only made it about halfway through your last post, and it’s clear that you’re either trolling or just too stupid for words.
        .
        Either way, done with you.

      9. Jerry: I’m pretty sure there’s an actual reason why conservatives are blind to the concept that Maher, Stewart et al are equal opportunity destroyers.
        .
        See, if I write something and a hundred people write positive reviews about it, but one guy writes a negative review…that’s the one that stands out in my memory. That’s just human nature. If a stadium of people are cheering you and one guy is booing, you’re not thinking, “All these people love me. Isn’t that great?” Instead you think, “What’s THAT guy’s problem with me?” Jason Segal, who co-wrote and starred as “Gary” in the film, “The Muppets” got near universal acclaim. But what’s Segal’s self-described “new favorite possession”? A framed copy of an audience research survey, taken after a test screening, in which a seven year old respondent said that his least favorite thing in the film was “Gary’s Face.”
        .
        I think it’s the same basic concept for conservatives. Whenever a comic pundit says something critical of the left, they don’t remember it because they agree with it. They have no issue with it. But whenever something is said that’s critical of them or their beliefs, THAT’S what they remember. Everything else falls away so that they wind up with a skewed view of the world.
        .
        Why doesn’t it work the same way with liberals when it comes to political humor? Well, if I had to guess, judging by the flavor-of-the-month nature of the GOP presidential campaign, I’d guess that we simply have better attention spans.
        .
        PAD

      10. .
        “Why doesn’t it work the same way with liberals when it comes to political humor? Well, if I had to guess, judging by the flavor-of-the-month nature of the GOP presidential campaign, I’d guess that we simply have better attention spans.”
        .
        Or the idea that Bush put forward, you’re either with us or against us, is far more prevalent a mindset among the more right leaning conservative faithful out there. One of the things that amazed me in the 90s was the rep that Doonesbury had. I would read weeks of strips ripping on Clinton, Gore and/or Teddy Kennedy and the other Democrats running the show without taking a break to beat up the Right, and the Right would then rip Doonesbury as a liberal attack strip that trashed conservatives all of the time. Hëll, Rush flat out lifted his 2000 campaign gags about Gore from Doonesbury strips written about Gore during the Democratic primaries running up to the 92 election.
        .
        A side note to that – Gary Trudeau has said several times that even his most fangs out attacks on Democratic politicians have often been taken with good humor by the targets of those strips. Outside of Reagan and maybe Bush the First, that hasn’t been true of the Republicans of the modern era.
        .
        The Right went after Garrison Keillor and A Prairie Home Companion (and tried to use it as an example of the liberalism of NPR) when GK was poking then Governor Jesse Ventura with a comedy stick and calling the show another NPR, liberal propaganda piece. I listened to the show back then and still do now. PHC poked Clinton and Gore with the same comedy stick for most of the 90s.
        .
        The attack on GK and PHC was made funnier a year later when the same conservative media outlets attacking them were rebroadcasting during the week parts of the Al Gore campaign spoofs that PHC was doing on the weekend and made funnier still about two years after that when those same conservative champions of Ventura threw him under the bus and proclaimed him a joke/sideshow act and never a serious politician.
        .
        Maybe I’m just weird. I like a political POV or candidate, but I can laugh at jokes made at the expense of that POV or candidate. If the jokes in that god awful Fox News comedy show were any dámņëd good, I would have been watching it despite the fact that their expressed reason for being was to attack the Left. Bill Mulligan and I have shared a couple of car rides where we’ve laughed at the idiots on both sides of the current political game’s teams. It’s got to be crystal clear to anyone here that Bill is to my right on a lot of things. Neither one of us seem to only remember the other attacking just “the other side.”
        .
        Ronald Reagan once said that the 11th commandment was (despite doing it himself) “thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” It’s like that philosophy and the with us or against us philosophy got thrown in a blender and turned into the favorite drink of the hard right. You’re with them or against them and if you say so much as one negative thing about them, even if you say a hundred negative things about Democrats for every one of those statements, you’re not with them. You are against them and you’re the enemy.

      11. “A framed copy of an audience research survey, taken after a test screening, in which a seven year old respondent said that his least favorite thing in the film was “Gary’s Face.””
        .
        I can understand that. I spent the whole movie wishing I could punch him in the face.

      12. /####/#### /##
        /##///##/ ///
        /####### /###
        /##///## //##
        /## /## /##
        /####/####/####, PAD!! Remember me? 😉
        ///////////////

        (That won’t look right as a WordPress comment, but copy-and-paste it into NotePad or some other editor with a monospaced font.)

        Anyway, LTNS!!

        Re: your statement: “Conservatives, and particularly conservative Christians, paint this bizarre picture where everyone is out to get them, and it’s not based in actuality or anything that’s demonstrable; it’s just this strange self-obsession that typically runs counter to reality. Like: ‘Oh my God, there’s a war on Christmas! People have forgotten the religious foundations of this country!’”

        What this is about is that Jesus PROMISED the faithful Christians that they would suffer persecution in His name. Therefore, if they’re NOT persecuted, why, that would mean that (A) they’re not really as faithful Christians as they think they are, or (B) Jesus was wrong! And we can’t have THAT now, CAN we!?

        So desperate are they for persecution that they’ll make it up if they can’t get the real thing (and most of them don’t even know what REAL persecution IS [even though what they dish out to groups they hate or otherwise oppose comes a lot closer than anything they themselves may “suffer” in this nation]). Thus, “War on Christmas” for daring to say “Happy Holidays” (even though “Holidays” is short for “HOLY Days” and thus isn’t even secular! “Season’s Greetings” is secular).

    2. “Maher has been saying the dumbest things for years now, even getting himself fired from ABC for calling the 911 terrorist brave.”
      .
      Which is stupid. Of course they were brave. Most crimes require bravery to commit them. But people like to equate bravery with heroism, which is just incorrect.

    3. even getting himself fired from ABC for calling the 911 terrorist brave.
      .
      “We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You’re right.”
      .
      Well, it’s picking nits about bravery vs cowardice. But then, he wasn’t wrong about what he said, either.
      .
      And he didn’t get himself fired, his contract wasn’t renewed. Again, nitpicking, I suppose.
      .
      I wonder how long history will allow it to be that after 9/11 the only thing you were supposed to have done was wrap yourself in the flag and stick your fingers in your ears if you heard any criticism of America or her policies.

      1. “He been getting away with it for years because it’s deemed cool to attack conservatives, Catholics and christians.”

        “Catholics and christians” Interesting distinction.

      2. .
        ““Catholics and christians” Interesting distinction.”
        .
        Old topic, but it’s a distinction that many conservative Christians have made for years. I even knew a cop (now retired) who was also a youth pastor and would tell you point blank that the Catholics are who dámņëd near destroyed Christianity and the church.
        .
        Old religious infighting/bigotry in the church. You even see a side effect of it in people that don’t hold that view. I could care less about the issue, but because of the people I grew up around I tend to sometimes make that distinction when speaking or writing without thinking about it and I’m married to a Catholic.

    4. @PAD: Okay, I’ll list every Jewish Holiday I know about, in order of importance, and you tell me which ones I don’t know about:
      1) Shabbos (celebrated weekly)
      2) Yom Kippur (10th of Tishrei)
      3) Passover (15th of Nissan)
      4) Shavuos (seven weeks after second day of Passover)
      5) Rosh HaShana (1st of Tishrei)
      6) Sukkos (15th of Tishrei)
      7) Hoshana Rabba (21st of Tishrei)
      8) Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah (22nd of Tishrei, plus 23rd of Tishrei outside of Israel)
      9) Tisha B’Av (9th of Av, Fast day)
      10) Purim (14th of Adar, Adar II in leap year)
      11) Shushan Purim (15th of Adar, Jerusalem only, on years where 15th is Shabbos, spread out over 14-16)
      12) Shiva asar B’Tamuz (17th Tammuz, Fast)
      13) Tzom Gedalia (3rd of Tishrei, Fast)
      14) Asarah B’Teves (10th of Teves, Fast, falls on 1/5/12 this year)
      15) Ta’anis Esther (13th of Adar, Fast)
      16) Channukah (25th of Kislev)
      17) Tu B’Av (15th of Av)
      18) Tu B’Shvas (15th of Shvas)
      19) Netel Nacht (January 7, observed only by craziest of Chasidim)

      So PAD, did my parents get their money’s worth on my yeshiva day school tuition? 🙂 Or did I leave any out? (And for the record, Yom HaZikaron and Yom HaAtzmaut are Israeli holidays.) Also, let’s see if PAD can remember the names of all the named members of the Pantheon, and when their last appearance was. 🙂

      1. Hey, since you appear to be an expert on the subject (or, at least, far more than me), one thing has puzzled me:

        How do practicing Jews who live north of the Arctic Circle (or south of the Antarctic Circle) handle the whole “the day begins at sundown” thing, given the Midnight Sun / Noon Night thing?

      2. @ComaLite J: Glad to be of service: they determine the nearest place where the sun sets and follow their times for sunrise/sunset. This was a practical issue for Jews living in Estonia and Latvia and the really northern parts of Russia.

        As for those Jews who are in space, they use the times for sunrise/sunset of Cape Canaveral, or whichever facility they launched from.

  5. Good for Maher! Tebow is a complete and utterly offencive idiot who’s shoving his pathetically stupid religious beliefs in every one’s face so he deserves to be verbally taken down.
    The idea that God would let so many tragic and awful things happen, but intervene in a football game…..

    1. Well first of all Tebow isn’t “shoving his pathetically stupid religious beliefs in everyone’s face” anymore than Maher is. You don’t have to watch any game Tebow plays in just like you don’t have to read Maher’s tweets. Being offended by Tebow or Maher says a lot more about the person taking offense than either of those two men.
      .
      More importantly Tebow appears to be ignoring Matthew Chapter 6:
      “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”
      .
      “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
      .
      I don’t like quoting Scripture because it just seems so pointless. People who agree already know it and people who don’t agree have no reason to be swayed by it. However, Tebow is apparently very religious so he should be aware of Matthew Chapter 6.

      1. You don’t have to watch any game Tebow plays in just like you don’t have to read Maher’s tweets.
        .
        It’s not nearly that simple when it comes to Tebow.
        .
        Nobody is covering every move Maher makes and reporting on it. Even before Tebow came along and living in Denver I couldn’t read or watch local news if I wanted to avoid the incessant Broncos talk. It’s 100x worse now.
        .
        One hilarious comment is Eric Bolling of Faux News calling Maher “disgusting vile trash.” Hilarious.
        .
        And now one of the worst QBs in the NFL has been named the 2nd alternate to the Pro Bowl… even though half a dozen other AFC QBs are far, far better.
        .
        If Tebow were anything other than a Christian, he’d be a nobody. But somehow Maher is at fault. Whatever.

      2. In case a summary is needed:
        .
        To avoid Maher:
        Stop following him on Twitter (but even then, I may be subjected to retweets, so again why no boycott of Twitter?);
        Do not subscribe to HBO
        .
        To avoid Tebow:
        Stop watching all NFL games (because he’s talked about in dámņ near every broadcast);
        Stop visiting every sports outlet (particularly The Tebow Network, EPSN);
        Stop visiting most general news outlets (since they also spend far too much time talking about him)
        .
        Hmm, I can certainly see why it’s easier to boycott HBO.

    2. .
      Marc,
      .
      To a degree, I have to disagree with what you’re saying about Tebow. He has the right to say anything he wants to as and so long as he’s not attacking the faiths of other people while doing it, I have no real problems with it. I think it’s a bit stupid sounding when people essentially express the idea that God had nothing better to do on an evening than be for them and their team and against the other team in an evening and while making sure that they won what is in reality a trivial game he was letting people get murdered, raped and butchered all around the world, but I have no problems with them saying something that stupid.
      .
      If anything, I occasionally have an issue with Maher here. While I don’t have an issue with making fun of a particular quirk of some people when it comes to expressing their faith, I think Maher tends to step over the line of sarcastic jokes to attacking people for their beliefs a little too often. He tends to go from making fun of the stupid ways they express or use their faith to seemingly attacking them for holding a faith a little too much lately.
      .
      George,
      .
      What’s funny about this and goes to the victimization thing many “Christians” go on about that Peter mentions in the thread is that what Tebow does is seen as normal, fine and dandy. They like to complain that there’s a war against their faith in this country, yet you can express your Christian faith in just about any setting and for any reason and almost no one will bat an eye. It’s fine and dandy to give God credit for winning an award for writing a song. It’s just an average day when you thank God for being on your side in a football game. It’s absolutely normal of you to beat someone to a bloody pulp in a boxing ring or MMA octagon and then thank God for being with you and giving you the strength to do it. And the same people attacking Maher now as well as many, many others will just smile and not even think that it’s at all out of place in these or other settings.
      .
      But the same people attacking Maher now, and even some of the ones who aren’t, will flip if the person who just won whatever they won is gay and thanks their partner. They’ll get outraged if the person says anything of a political nature; even if it’s a relatively innocuous political statement. It’s just not, they’ll say, the time and place for it and “that person” is shoving their beliefs down everyone else’s throats. They shouldn’t be putting their personal issues out there or they should just shut up and sing. Hëll, even if they create a of piece entertainment or fiction that has positive images of gays, Muslims or some other group on their target lists, they’ll proclaim that the evil artist is social engineering and trying to shove their views down the throats of average Americans.
      .
      And if they refuse to shut up, the self-proclaimed victimized “Christian” groups and political organization on the Right will go after them and do whatever they can to hurt them and shut them up. But it’s them and their faith that’s under siege in this country and they’re the victimized ones here.

      1. Maher does like to strawman religion and the faithful a lot. His movie “Religulous” is a good example.

      2. Jerry, while I appreciate what you are saying when you state that Tebow can say whatever he likes about other faiths as long as he is not attacking them, I cannot agree. Any belief system should be vulnerable to attack. People may disagree about how “polite” you should be while doing so but that should not stop people from criticizing belief systems. Some religious faiths and texts go so far as to require their adherents to participate in some form of attack on people who believe differently. Do I get upset when someone attacks my beliefs? Sure. That does not mean that think they should not be able to and some of those attacks have caused me to give serious thought to their points and on some occasions pushed me to change my way of thinking.

      3. .
        “Jerry, while I appreciate what you are saying when you state that Tebow can say whatever he likes about other faiths as long as he is not attacking them, I cannot agree.”
        .
        Not quite what I said. I said he has the right to say whatever he wants to and so long as he’s not attacking the faiths of other people while doing it, I have no real problems with it. That was in response to Marc saying –
        .
        “Tebow is a complete and utterly offencive idiot who’s shoving his pathetically stupid religious beliefs in every one’s face so he deserves to be verbally taken down.”
        .
        Marc was expressing an opinion that’s not too dissimilar from the fanatic Right whenever anyone says something that they don’t like. It was great that Bill Maher went after Tebow because Tebow talks about his faith a lot and thus deserves to get attacked for “shoving his pathetically stupid religious beliefs in every one’s face.”
        .
        I was disagreeing with that sentiment. I don’t see the need to go after someone just because they’re openly or overly religious. If they want to express that faith, I have no problem with it unless they start attacking other people’s faiths and beliefs. I have no issue with even questioning the structure or foundations of a faith, but I see no reason to attack it or insult its followers.
        .
        That’s also the issue I have with Bill Maher anymore when religion is the topic. He doesn’t question, he attacks. He doesn’t challenge an idea, he insults those who hold to that idea.
        .
        I find the act of an athlete crediting God for every good thing that they do or talking about how God was with them (and apparently against everyone else by logical extension of that) to be silly. I don’t feel the need to be an ášš about it. Maher seems to feel differently.

      4. “Nobody is covering every move Maher makes and reporting on it. Even before Tebow came along and living in Denver I couldn’t read or watch local news if I wanted to avoid the incessant Broncos talk. It’s 100x worse now.”
        .
        So? Local news all across the country is a joke. And as you said, Denver has always been Bronco crazy. Toss in that the Broncos are winners again and Tebow’s story, well, why BLAME him for it?

        “One hilarious comment is Eric Bolling of Faux News calling Maher “disgusting vile trash.” Hilarious.”
        .
        Not really. Name-calling should always be a last resort and is never pretty.
        .
        “And now one of the worst QBs in the NFL has been named the 2nd alternate to the Pro Bowl… even though half a dozen other AFC QBs are far, far better.”
        .
        Worst? In what way? And name the six that are better Craig. Come on. Name them. Who is? KC’s Tyler Palko? The jokes Indy had? Carson Palmer? Please.
        .
        Today’s rules make it easy for QB’s to post big stats. But Tebow helped Denver WIN. They are in the playoffs for the first time in a half-dozen years and his arrival was the catalyst. THAT’s why he’s going to Hawaii.
        .
        “If Tebow were anything other than a Christian, he’d be a nobody”
        .
        And if he were anything other than a Christian he wouldn’t bother you nearly as much, bigot.

      5. Worst? In what way? And name the six that are better Craig. Come on. Name them. Who is? KC’s Tyler Palko? The jokes Indy had? Carson Palmer? Please.
        .
        Feel free to actually learn something about football:
        http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating/league/afc
        .
        Not only that, but guys like Moore actually IMPROVED as the season went on, where as Tebow managed to hit an even rockier bottom than his pathetic ability to throw had already shown.
        .
        The Broncos defense kept them in games. They played their best at any point in the last probably five years for a good chunk of the season.
        .
        And when it couldn’t, Tebow showed exactly what a non-entity is he as a QB. And Broncos fans WILL run him out of town if he doesn’t win. They’ve done that with every QB they’ve had since Elway retired, including the one Tebow replaced: Orton, who beat them and would’ve knocked them out of the playoffs if not for the Raiders wanting it just a little bit less.
        .
        Tebow, the all ridiculous ‘savior’ got beat by the player he replaced. Priceless.
        .
        And bigot? ROFLMAO. While you’re looking at those stats, don’t forget to look for a dictionary. But considering how pathetic this post of yours was, I’ll be sure to not waste my time reading the rest.

      6. I don;t follow football all that closely but for a “bad” quarterback he sure has led the team pretty far. The Steelers just went down in overtime!
        .
        I’m reminded of CASBLANCA where the nazi refers to Rick as “Just another blundering American” and Louis tells him not to underestimate American blundering “I was with them when they blundered into berlin.”

  6. It always amused me when K-Rod, the Mets relief pitcher, would always cross himself and point heavenward when he saved a game. I always wanted him to look upward and flip God the fingers when he blew a save. Never happened.
    .
    PAD

    1. Ðámņ, you beat me to that (and The Onion article where the player on a losing team blames Jesus for the loss). Still, it’s logical that if you thank Jesus when you win, you oughta blame Him when you lose. But this is far from the first time folks have thanked God for the good things in their lives, yet somehow attribute the bad things to some random force.

      As for Maher, he’s opinionated, often one-sided, and (IMHO) pretty dámņ funny. And yes, he often goes to extremes for a comic point — as many, many, many other comics do. Like any comic, you can like or hate them. But boycotting HBO for what one person said while off the network is idiotic.

    2. Well he fired his old agent and signed with Scott Boras, I’m pretty sure that counts as giving God the double barrels right there…

    3. To be fair to Tebow on this particular matter, and regardless of whether his team won or lost (as far as I’m aware), he always starts his post-game comments by giving thanks to God. So, at least he’s consistent.

      1. Ah, but if Tebow were REALLY practicing his faith as it’s taught, he’d be in a different line of work.
        .
        “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
        .
        And WHAT day does the NFL choose to play the overwhelming majority of its games? Sunday–the Christian Sabbath. (And unlike OTHER laws that many Christians love to ignore because “Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law,” this is one of THE big Commandments. Further, we can’t let the notion that a couple of Christian denominations revere Saturday as their Sabbath day since Tebow played college football and most of those games are Saturday games.
        .
        Now, I’m guessing that the Lord intended the Sabbath commandment to not apply to those whose vocations include religious instruction but the last time I checked the job of “football player” doesn’t have “religious instruction” as one of its job-related responsibilities, so Tebow isn’t exempt from his Christian obligation to keep the Sabbath holy and “do no work.”

      2. @PAD: Why are we praising Sandy Koufax for not playing on Yom Kippur, when he played regularly on Shabbos? Shabbos is holier than Yom Kippur.

      3. @JosephW: Unlike Sandy Koufax, Tim Tebow’s Sabbath restrictions are not defined anywhere, whereas Jewish Sabbath restrictions are spelled out in the Talmud, the Mishnah Torah and the Shulkhan Arukh. Playing baseball for money on Shabbos is a big no-no for Jews, a bigger no-no than playing baseball for money on Yom Kippur. I’m not aware that the no-nos for Evangelicals are actually defined.

      4. Wait, PAD, are you saying that Koufax never played on Friday nights? Or that he never played a Friday afternoon game that went into extra innings just as the sun was setting without always pulling a ‘Big Gedaliah Goomber’ on his team mates?

      5. “To be fair to Tebow on this particular matter, and regardless of whether his team won or lost (as far as I’m aware), he always starts his post-game comments by giving thanks to God. So, at least he’s consistent.”
        .
        Thank you.

    4. “It always amused me when K-Rod, the Mets relief pitcher, would always cross himself and point heavenward when he saved a game. I always wanted him to look upward and flip God the fingers when he blew a save. Never happened.”
      .
      Why should it amuse you? Part of being a humble person and a good teammate is to share the credit when you succeed and look inward when you fail. Granted, this runs counter to many who want to take all the credit when they succeed and blame others when they fail, but I think the former approach is a lot healthier and a lot more successful way to live your life.

  7. I really didn’t hear about the Teebow comment until the boycotters opened up their stupid-holes. I’m not a fan Teebow/Maher/boycotts, but in the end it was one persons opinion…agree or disagree it doesn’t matter. It’s an opinion. The world continues on it’s axis and we still have a congress full of morons. Besides, we were all thinking that same thing about Teebow just Bill Maher beat us to the punch.

    1. “Besides, we were all thinking that same thing about Teebow just Bill Maher beat us to the punch.”
      .
      No “we were all” not. It’s presumptuous to think you speak for everyone else. You certainly don’t speak for me.

  8. I’m going to boycott Twitter. Without it, then none of this would have happened!! It’s totally Twitter’s fault in all of this.

  9. And for the record….this whole ‘blaming Jesus’ thing is nonsense. If you lose, it’s simple because you played lousy. Besides, if Jesus really didn’t like you team, he wouldn’t make you lose the game. He’d break the water-main,flood the stadium and drown the lot of them.

    1. Um, that’s rather the point being made by those mentioning the ‘blaming Jesus thing’. If your team wins, it’s because they played better or were luckier than the other team, not because God has nothing better to do than take sides in a children’s game being played by overpaid adults. If you’re going to be ridiculous enough to give Jesus credit for your wins, the necessary corralary is that you should be ridiculous enough to blame Him for your losses…

  10. 1- Having enjoyed many HBO shows over the years I wonder… do bible thumpers watch this channel often? I mean, havent they implicitly boycotted HBO so far? and the few that havent… if their religious/moral stance didnt make them stop watching with Omar Little or any other of the many displays of open mindedness shown in HBO, I doubt they are going to fall in line just now.
    .

    2- Boycotts are a legitimate mean of public discourse. The reasons for a boycott might be just or unjust but it is legitimate to Boycott a person or bussines. Capt.Boycott case beign a good example, but civil rights movements also boycotted certain companies or bussines. Ghandi boycotted the whole british textile industry. If only, civic minded citizens should boycott companies more often rather than implicity support companies that do things they are against. It is desirable people are fair and judicious when it comes to this, but the instrument is too valuable to dismiss it because some people are not.

    1. Putting aside that I don’t have cable and couldn’t afford HBO if I did…

      I am a devout Jew. And odds are that I would have a hard time watching most of HBO’s shows. I don’t like nudity, or sex scenes, or foul language. I have no problem with HBO making shows with these things, since they are clearly labeled and no one is forcing me to watch them. But they aren’t for me. And I would guess, therefore, that at least some people in the Christian right aren’t watching either regardless of a boycott.

      1. And I think that’s perfectly fair. At no time have I argued that people have no right to have preferences; that would be insane. I mean, personally, I think you’re missing some great programming, but then again, the rest of my family knows that the fastest way to get me out of the living room is to put on one of those Model or Runway shows, and I’m gone.
        .
        What I object to are those people who not only say, “I do not want to watch this program,” but also, “And I’m going to do everything within my power to make sure that you don’t either.” The only possible end game of a boycott against HBO–the only way it would be considered a success–is if, as a result, they canceled “Real Time.” Which I find personally infuriating. I respect their right to watch (and not watch) whatever programs they want. Why the hëll do they have NO respect for my right to do so?
        .
        PAD

      2. PAD:
        But your problem is with the fairness of the use of the tool, not with the tool itself. I am sure someone said “My, Capt.Boycott farm sold the best leek in the whole county. Why wouldnt those damm catholics choose to protest about land auctioning in a different way?”.
        .
        When a group decides to boycott a person or company, they dont force anyone to stop watching/buying, they usually inform likeminded people of their version of the story and “demand” them coherence to their religious, political or whatever allegiance they might have. But every individual is free to do what they please. Sometimes this is just a matter of informing people of a little known fact about a person-company that might put it under a new light.
        .
        A certain Pizza delivery chain was my favorite one but I was informed the owner used his money to finance anti abortion groups. So I stopped buying that pizza (wich at that time was the best one around, believe me). My loss, more power to me or whatever. But I did more than that and informed others about where their money was going if they put it there. Long story short, that chain pulled off the spanish market. When it returned almost 20 years later, I did a little research and found out that owner had finally sold the chain so I resumed my bussines with it.
        .
        No one forced me to stop buying, and in fairness, it was a good thing I was informed that I might be putting my money where it could be used in a way I dont agree with. If not enough people had bothered, the company wouldnt have pulled off but I wouldnt have spent a dime in it anyway.
        .
        Boycotting companies or individuals whose bussines/trade is communication (and comedy is communication) is a bit stupid because it’s a very transparent bussines. For all I know, my barber might be using my money to support seal clubbing. But a communicator (person or company) is actually selling me his viewpoints. Boycotting him for it is redundant, and informing other people seems a bit futile because if they share your oppinion they are probably not watching/reading/paying for the object of your boycott.
        .
        That is why these campaigns usually target the announcers, and there you might object you interfere with someone else’s right to watch/read what they want. But there have been examples of positive boycotts; “if you listen to these guys because you dont want to lose their bussines, know that by doing so you might be losing ours”. And they work fine.

  11. Maher does nothing for me–I can;t take smug pseudo-intellectualism from someone whose view of vaccines is on par with the most gullible creationist. But others find him amusing so c’est la vie. I find it monumentally easy to entertain myself without thinking about him unless he is brought up. Which, ironically, is what these people did–Maher makes an entirely unoriginal crack about Tebow (on of the BIG issues of the day!) and it would have simply gone to that place that other such jokes go (“Airplane food! What is up with that?”) but now he gets some attention. And is there anyone so feeble minded that they think there are enough people who find this offensive who actually watch the show that a boycott would work? It’s like hearing that vegetarians are boycotting Big macs or the OWS is no longer buying deodorant sticks.
    .
    PAD is absolutely right–boycotts are 99 times out of a hundred lazy and meaningless and have been so diluted by repetition and overuse that the 1% that have a good point are drowned out.
    .
    (And those few that are valid have nothing to do with people freely stating their opinion, even if they do so in a way that makes them look like an ášš. Which, incidentally, I actually am very much in favor of. When I disagree with someone I WANT them to express themselves in the rudest, most vulgar, off-putting way conceivable.)
    .
    (And yes, Mr Jerry Chandler, that’s an opening you could drive a truck through!)

  12. I’m a big fan of Maher’s, but I was personally disappointed by what I felt was an unnecessary jab in his tweet at all Christians, many of whom have no idea who Tebow is or do not support his connecting his religion to his sport. I’m an agnostic, but I grew up in a religious household and have the deepest respect for Christians and people of other faiths who practice their religions without demanding that others must kowtow to their beliefs as law. I have Religulous in my DVD collection and thoroughly enjoyed it, but Maher and other atheists need to be reminded that belief in “nothing” is in itself a “faith”, as easily subject to scrutiny and ridicule as others.
    .
    Now having said all that, I have no intention of tuning out Bill’s show or anything else on HBO, especially at the behest of mostly reactionary fundamentalists who look for any excuse to claim that they’re being persecuted on a massive scale by socialist, Marxist, Nazi, Communist “fill-in-the-blank” liberals. Maher could have just tweeted “Butterfingers Tebow! Haw! Haw!”, and many of them would still be calling for his head. If they don’t think it’s a big deal when someone tweets about killing or injuring Obama, how can they expect anyone to really get up in arms about Maher’s comments?
    .
    Boycotts do have place; just ask any person of color who lived in Montgomery Alabama in 1956. But knee-jerk outcries for such by thin-skinned groups who ultimately will never be appeased anyway don’t carry any real weight. I can be critical of someone that I either like or hate because of a comment that upsets me or I don’t agree with, without demanding that the person who made it be universally ostracized . As much as Rush Limbaugh makes my skin crawl, I’ll always support his right to be an áššhølë on the airways.

    1. Well, atheists don’t really “believe in nothing.” Maher, and others among what I like to call “the evangelical atheist community” do, however, have a deep-seated, almost religious faith in their own self-righteousness. Which makes them not too different from the zealous evangelical Christians they so decry.

    2. I’m a big fan of Maher’s, but I was personally disappointed by what I felt was an unnecessary jab in his tweet at all Christians, many of whom have no idea who Tebow is or do not support his connecting his religion to his sport.
      .
      Really?
      .
      I’m an atheist and avoid football like the plague, yet I know who he is and how over the top he is in publicly expressing his faith.
      .
      –Daryl

      1. He’s not over-the-top. He simply displays his faith publicly, which for some reason pìššëš people off.

  13. I really don’t see anything funny in Maher’s tweet. Where’s the cleverness? The wit? It’s just outright insults. A convoluted joke about Native Americans getting back at Christian missionaries by proxy would’ve been funnier.

    But it’s not worth boycotting. Nothing is. Also, if you didn’t like that joke, you probably weren’t watching Maher’s show anyway; I certainly don’t. So what’s the point of a boycott?

  14. PAD, just curious. Are you opposed to boycotting itself, or just that most are poorly created? I ask because today, a store owner made homophobic remarks, which were horrible. I do not intend to buy there again and inform others of my choice. Do you think there are times where boycotting is effective and should be used?

    1. I think organized boycotts have lost a large part of their meaning because they’re a knee-jerk reaction, typically used in a punitive manner in order to get back at someone simply because they’ve said something you didn’t like. In this case, if Maher’s opinions are bothersome, then don’t read his Tweets. Don’t watch his show on HBO. But you know what? I happen to enjoy “Real Time,” and it pìššëš me off that–rather than simply choosing not to watch the show–others would endeavor to use financial pressure to get HBO to drop his show. It’s not enough that they don’t want to watch it; they want to make sure that I don’t have the opportunity either.
      .
      If there’s a store owner that makes you uncomfortable, by all means, don’t go to his store. If you’re with some friends and the subject of the store comes up, it seems reasonable to voice your thoughts on the owner. But I think if you take it upon yourself to become Paul Revere and run around telling everyone, “This guy said homophobic stuff!” I don’t see the point in that.
      .
      PAD

      1. I get what you are saying, boycotts used to be used for near crimes, now people use them as a punishment to threaten people. and ruining someone’s source of income is a harsh punishment indeed, one that today is taken too lightly.

        The story does have a happy ending, I did what I felt you would and asked if I could speak to the store owner who said that. I explained how hurtful it was and told him how much my cousin has been bullied, and how I didn’t feel safe in his store if he said that, and that he might lose a lot more customers, because glbt and allies don’t always walk around with that on their foreheads, and I mentioned ahavat yisroel, that in the holy city, we should love our fellow man.

        He seriously was moved, especially when I said i would send people to his store if he promised to stop the lashon hara.

        I got his word. He will not use certain words anymore.

      2. Dungeonwriter, could you tell me what store it was? Since I live in the same holy city (I think).

      3. You handled it exactly right. My constant mantra in this matter is that the answer to free speech is always more free speech, not trying to punish or cut off the speaker.
        .
        PAD

      4. Dungeonwriter, first, bravo to you. We can’t know what is in another man’s heart but there is at east a chance that you have genuinely made him see people in a better kinder light and this could yield benefits you will never know of.
        .
        Had you simply organized a boycott you would more likely have hardened his heart against gay people and their supporters. You might have “won” in the sense that his business would have been harmed but other than being a lesson to others to keep their opinions as they are but unspoken would the word really be a better place?

      5. The problem with most boycotts is that they wind up hurting the wrong people. As an example: let’s say Woolworth’s (yeah, long gone; it’s an EXAMPLE) endorsed and perpetuated the segregationist lunch counter incident and it became S.O.P. in all their stores. Some people would call for a boycott. And who would be affected? Woolworth’s? No way. They’d just lay off a few people who really need their job (otherwise they wouldn’t be working at Woolworth’s) and maybe close down some underperforming stores, again closing people their jobs. The profitable lunch counters remain open — and lily white.

      6. PAD,
        Boycotts are a knee-jerk reaction. But people still have a right to make their displeasure known. I see your point. “Glenn Beck”, a show I enjoyed on Fox at least as much as you enjoy Maher on HBO, was the victim of huge boycotts in which, despite garnering high ratings, it had what those in the business call “empty calories” because most of it’s major advertisers pulled out due to the pressure.
        .
        On the one hand, this really pìššëš me off. And to me, it’s self-defeating. To me, the best revenge for those on the Left would be if, as many predicted, Beck went the way of Morton Downey, Jr., became a complete parody of himself, lost ratings, influence and prestige and was THEN cancelled. On the other, no one has a right to host a rasio or TV program or write a comic book.
        .
        More importantly, as long as someone resonates with an audience, how effective are boycotts really? Imus got another job. Howard Stern went to satellite radio and is now back on mainstream TV.
        .
        Even Rosie O’Donnell and Keith Olbermann have popped up elsewhere after their flameouts and Glenn Beck has his own pay-TV show.
        .
        It’s not like the old days when if you kept someone off of a couple stations or knew someone at a major paper you silenced them.
        .
        So Maher gets cancelled at HBO and Showtime announces a month later they’ve signed him. A lot of energy for not much.

  15. billmaher
    Bill Maher
    All u J-freaks having a cow re my Tebow tweets pls go back to the much longer piece we did on 11/4 Real Time and have a proper heart attack
    20 minutes ago
    .
    He’s right: those calling for a boycott have had nearly 2 months to throw a hissy fit. Which means that they haven’t been watching HBO anyways, so their boycott has no meaning.

    1. Uh, yeah it does. Number one, because if they have been busy living lives and actually do have HBO and are just now being offended by Maher, they can NOW dump HBO as a sign of protest.
      .
      Number two, as Jerry states so eloquently, a boycott is not the few people who may or may not be watching Maher to drop HBO, but for them to get friends, family and potentially many, many others to drop it.
      .
      So right or wrong, the boycott could possibly have an impact.

  16. My own two cents (not that anyone asked):

    .

    Bill Maher: Never found him funny

    .

    Boycotts: respect the effect they had during the civil rights era, and perhaps apartheid. I dislike how some of them are used today (especially in the U.K. where various groups want to boycott Israeli academics over the Palestinians. This is especially dumb because Israeli academics (statistically speaking) are one of the most likely groups to disagree with their gov over the Palestinians, why boycott those that agre with you?)

    1. They want to boycott pro-Palestinian Israelis the most. By continuing to live in Tel Aviv, Haifa or Rishon L’Tzion, the Israeli leftists are still proclaiming their right to be Israelis. That’s the real reason for the boycott, not because of the Green Line, settlements, mehadrin buses or how much better Israeli hummus tastes than Lebanese hummus: the real reason is the right of Israel to exist at all. Even if Abu Mazen were to sign a peace treaty which granted him a Palestinian state in 100% of Judea and Samaria, and all of Jerusalem, the BDS movement would still be active.

      1. I have to respectfully disagree with that point of view. I’m a leftist who supports the right of Israel to exist and wants to see a two-state solution. I have a lot of contact with leftist activists, some of whom have a similar view, and too many of which have an “Israel=evil” point of view, so I see a variety of opinions (just not enough variety, in my opinion.) I also meet with Israeli activists, some of whom support BDS because they disagree with the occupation, some of which don’t. Most of the U.K. movements to boycott Israeli academics seem to me to be based on protesting Palestinian conditions. Again, I find boycotting academics to be stupid for a number of reasons, the large percentage of academics who protest treatment of the Palestinians being one of the biggest reasons.

        .

        Also, I’ve been reading the book “Fast times in Palestine) by Pamela Olson, and she takes a look at the beginning of BDS. I’m not finished with the book yet, and I don’t think that BDS is the best way to go (so far, I think the most convincing rallies/movements are the joint Israeli-Palestinian ones) but the book is an upsetting eye-opener about life there. (also, the best book I’ve read on the whole thing is “I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor’s Journey on the Road to Peace and Human Dignity” by Izzeldin Abuelaish)

      2. @Jonathan: Why don’t you ask those Israeli activists who support BDS efforts if they would be willing to cut their own throats if someone told them it would bring about a two-state solution? If their answer is no, ask them why they are doing their utmost to cause economic harships that will in no way lead to a two state solution, let alone actual peace. (If they say yes, immediately call an ambulance, and keep the steak knives away from them.)

      3. Just to clarify (since it seems that nuance and subtlety are the first casualties of any discussion on the Interwebz), the BDS movement is primarily composed of Westerners who for a variety of reasons hate Israel. Some are die hard, unrepentant Stalinists. Others are supporters of the more extreme elements of Palestinian nationalism. Some just hate Jews. Regardless, the goal of BDS is not to prompt Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Judea/Samaria, Jerusalem or the Golan Heights (the way Israel did when it expelled the Jews living in Gush Katif). They also could care less about negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The goal of BDS is to harm Israel economically and culturally, in the hopes of deligitimizing Israel.

        The comparison of modern Israel to apartheid-era South Africa is part of this goal of delegitimization. The comparison is bogus. In South Africa, a small minority of white Afrikaans ran the government. Black and Indian South Africans could not vote, hold office in Parliament, and they were restricted to what professions they could enter, what education they could obtain and what bathrooms, drinking fountains, stores and parks they could use.

        In Israel, all citizens who reside within the 1949-1967 cease-fire lines have the right to vote and the right to sit in the Knesset. There are currently 14 Arab or Druze MKs sitting in the current Knesset, including Deputy Minister Ayoob Karaof the Likud party. Salim Joubran, an Arab judge on the Israeli Supreme Court, was one of the judges who heard the appeal of former Israeli President Moshe Katzav for his conviction for rape. There is no comparison between Israel (a flawed liberal democracy at war with its neighbors) and apartheid-era South Africa (a nation founded on racism).

        But at the end of the day these are facts and facts alone are not enough to win an argument. Just look at the Tea Party or the 9/11 Truthers. When someone is as hate-filled as the BDS’ers, then facts will not sway them. For this reason, I question the loyalty (and sanity) of any Israeli that joins BDS or lends them any help.

      4. The specific Israeli activist I talked to who I remember supporting BDS (if my memory isn’t playing tricks on me) was a member of the Sheik Jamal neighborhood, who talked about the conflicts over property rights there, and the Arab and Israeli joint protesters, etc. I’ve read the comparisons/contrasts to the Israeli-Palestinian situation vs. South Africa, and somethimes I see the differences (Israeli-Arab members of Knesset) and other times, reading descriptions of life under occupation seem too similar.

        .

        All I ask is that you read “Fast Times in Palestine” and “I shall not hate” if your time permits (I am so behind on my reading pile, with my schedule being what it is) and see what you think of them.

  17. OK.. here’s my two cents. First of all, people have a right to boycott or not sponsor with their dollars ANYTHING they do not like or believe in. That is your right and if you want to organize a boycott fine. There have been several recent boycotts in the comic industry (One a shop owner who praised the psycho that shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and said more people should do the same, and the OTHER comic shop owner decided to refuse to buy Action Comics for his costumers because he felt Grant Morrison was insulting Christianity with some utterance by Superman). Now people refuse to frequent either shop now or buy products from those shops online through e-bay and other venues. They have the RIGHT to do that.

    If people want to boycott HBO because Bill Maher said something stupid, more power to them. They could also boycott it for True Blood being softcore pørņ if they’d like.. go for it. I mean, it’s your money and time you are wasting on these programs and HBO is a paid for TV show, so if you don’t want to pay money towards HBO.. don’t. You probably wouldn’t have anyhow WITHOUT Bill Maher’s comments, but hey..

    My problem with this though is it makes it seem like A) right wing conservatives are the only ones that boycott stupid things when in fact both sides have been known for incredibly stupid boycotts (Like the NAACP boycotting South Carolina and hurting African American owned businesses in the state because of the confederate flag or OWS trying to keep the 99% from getting good deals on Black Friday). B) that just because a person is religious they’re AUTOMATICALLY a right wing conservative, there are just as many religious nuts on the left as the right (as can be seen with California shooting down gay marriage based on their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs) and there are nut jobs that claim to be religious like the Westboro Baptist Church that NO SIDE claims and really no one wants.

    So yeah.. boycott if you want. It’s your money. You can choose not to purchase HBO or shop at Wal-Mart or whatever, but then follow THROUGH. Actually NOT DO IT. Don’t be a hypocrite later and sneak into Wal-Mart or like some who decry the evils of Wal-Mart while having stock in the company (I.E. it’s evil to shop there, but it’s OK that I make money off it). Or Boycott HBO and not buy the service, but then run out and get the complete True Blood on DVD for your pørņ.. er DVD collection.

  18. I learned this from being involved in social causes from time to time. Any time you have an opportunity to put your agenda forth you take it because its an opportunity to get free media exposure for your cause — a cause that a news organization would never otherwise pay attention to.

    These creeps obviously have no idea who Bill Maher is…if they did they would realize he says stuff every chance he gets to rattle the “frozen chosen”.

  19. Well I can’t say I’m against all boycotts, I moved all of my urls from Godaddy because of they helped write and supported SOPA. Even though they have now withdrawn their support I won’t be going back the CEO shooting elephants and the other stink emminating from that company SOPA was the last straw. So I can’t agree that all boycotts are bad.

    That said, my question is what will finally be revealed about Tebow’s darker side. Again and again it has been proven to me, by lots of people that those who wrap themselves in religion, as he does, are trying to distract from something far darker about themselves. Their religion is like a security blanket they hide behind or what they use for self denial. But sooner or later it comes out.

  20. My only problem with Maher is his support of PETA. I fully support him ridiculing religion any chance he gets. Religion is dangerous.

    1. .
      “Religion is dangerous.”
      .
      So to can stupidity, hate, intolerance and bigotry be dangerous. Thanks for displaying some so everyone is reminded what it looks like.

      1. You got stupidity, hate, intolerance and bigotry from just those three words? Or are you just displaying more intolerance as a further reminder of what it looks like?
        .
        I can’t be the only person seeing the irony here.

      2. .
        “You got stupidity, hate, intolerance and bigotry from just those three words? Or are you just displaying more intolerance as a further reminder of what it looks like?”
        .
        If the entire sentiment of your post is that you’re glad that someone attacked religion, not the people who use it foolishly or as a weapon, but religion itself, then yes I do and, yes, the person making that post is showing at least a little of most of those things. At the very least, they’re showing a huge amount of the “stupidity” if only small amounts of the rest.
        .
        I know it’s hip among the idiots out there who think that they’re showing how smart they are when they attack religion and faith, but they’re just showing what jáçkáššëš they are. Attack the fools who use religion as a weapon or excuse their stupidity, hate and bigotry religion, but there’s nothing wrong or dangerous about religion and faith or the faithful who don’t act like extremist jáçkáššëš or, in their own way, like ol’ Tom Keller up there.
        .
        “I can’t be the only person seeing the irony here.”
        .
        No, I’m sure Tom thinks that there’s some there as well. But he doesn’t appear all that bright from his above post, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in anything he says.

      3. “If the entire sentiment of your post is that you’re glad that someone attacked religion”

        No, what he said was that he supports someone ridiculing religion. That’s not the same thing as “attacking.” And calling him “stupid” for expressing a personal opinion is, frankly, beneath your intelligence. It’s certainly never won anybody any arguments.

      4. .
        No.
        .
        If he had simply said that he supported anyone’s right to ridicule religion, that would have been fine. I agree with that statement. While I would rather satirize the more silly seeming points of religion or the faithful and not ridicule them (as ridicule carries the idea of contempt and derision and is mostly used to deride and attack,) such actions and/or speech are allowable in our society. But his last bit, the bit I quoted, moved it towards a post more in line with attacking religion.
        .
        And, quite frankly, if you’re going to say something that stupid and open to interpretation of being what I described it as having a little bit of up above, then you should expect to be called on it.

    2. Ðámņ straight religion is dangerous! That’s why you namby pamby atheists need to leave religion to men and women brave enough to wrestle with the highly explosive thoughts they contain!

    3. I think religion has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. So does a steak knife. If used properly, it makes it much easier to get through a meal. Improperly, it can be used to kill someone.
      .
      I have no intrinsic problem with religion. My feeling is, whatever gets you through the day, without doing harm to others, is fine by me. If people find solace in going to church or leaning on God when times are tough, why should I care? On the other hand, when some people decide to start blowing things up or burning crosses on lawns in the name of their respective God, obviously I take issue with that.
      .
      Part of me sometimes wishes that Jesus really would descend from on high with trumpets blaring just so he can go to those “good Christians” who have done terrible things in his name and say, “What the hëll is WRONG with you people?”
      .
      PAD

      1. I don’t know what I wrote to be called “stupid” by Jerry Chandler, but I find it wisest not to respond to those kinds of attacks. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have all written more eloquently than I could hope to about why faith is irrational and religion dangerous than I could hope to. I refer any interested parties to their works.

      2. .
        “Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have all written more eloquently than I could hope to about why faith is irrational and religion dangerous than I could hope to.”
        .
        Having a lot of letters after your name or some level of perceived academic standing in some circles does not mean that some of the things you say and ideas you express are filled to greater or lesser degrees with stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry. Prior to and even after the civil rights movement in America, you could find academic scholars writing papers written quite “eloquently” and with great persuasiveness for many on the inferiority of blacks and other minorities compared to the white man. Hëll, you could still find academic texts like that being taught as a part of elementary school curriculum in South Africa in the late 80s or early 90s.
        .
        Are you going to say that such works are not filled to greater or lesser degrees with stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry just because the writers had academic standing or because they were all written more eloquently than you might be able to write them?
        .
        I know hundreds of people who are people of faith and who have never harmed anyone with their faith. Hëll, if anything they’re used the organization of their faith and their belief in its code of living to actually help other people. Their faith, and faith in general, is not dangerous.
        .
        The áššhølëš and con-men out there who use religion for their ends are the ones who are dangerous. But that makes religion no more or less dangerous than family ties, politics, pride or satisfaction in one’s home country or freedom in general.
        .
        If you can’t tell the difference between the thing and the people, then your stupid. If you refuse to let yourself see the difference, then you suffer from hate, intolerance and/or bigotry on top of the stupidity.

      3. .
        —————/^\—————
        —————!__!—————
        .
        .
        Minor correction that I just noticed when the email hit my inbox.
        .
        “Having a lot of letters after your name or some level of perceived academic standing in some circles does not mean that some of the things you say and ideas you express are not filled to greater or lesser degrees with stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry.”
        .
        Amazing the difference a single word makes.

      4. Okay, this deserves to be responded to in a piecemeal fashion, so bear with me.

        “Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have all written more eloquently than I could hope to about why faith is irrational and religion dangerous than I could hope to.”
        .
        “Having a lot of letters after your name or some level of perceived academic standing in some circles does not mean that some of the things you say and ideas you express are filled to greater or lesser degrees with stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry. Prior to and even after the civil rights movement in America, you could find academic scholars writing papers written quite “eloquently” and with great persuasiveness for many on the inferiority of blacks and other minorities compared to the white man. Hëll, you could still find academic texts like that being taught as a part of elementary school curriculum in South Africa in the late 80s or early 90s.
        .
        Are you going to say that such works are not filled to greater or lesser degrees with stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry just because the writers had academic standing or because they were all written more eloquently than you might be able to write them?”
        .

        This is a straw man argument with no foundation on anything I said in my post.

        “I know hundreds of people who are people of faith and who have never harmed anyone with their faith. Hëll, if anything they’re used the organization of their faith and their belief in its code of living to actually help other people. Their faith, and faith in general, is not dangerous.”
        .

        If you look carefully at my post, you’ll see I called faith irrational, not dangerous. That said, I think it is dangerous to believe something with no evidence for it – the definition of faith.

        “The áššhølëš and con-men out there who use religion for their ends are the ones who are dangerous. But that makes religion no more or less dangerous than family ties, politics, pride or satisfaction in one’s home country or freedom in general.”
        .

        History shows the danger of religion. As I wrote earlier, I refer you to the works of the above-named gentlemen.

        “If you can’t tell the difference between the thing and the people, then your stupid. If you refuse to let yourself see the difference, then you suffer from hate, intolerance and/or bigotry on top of the stupidity.”
        .

        Again, straw man. Nothing in my post indicates what you are arguing.

      5. .
        “This is a straw man argument with no foundation on anything I said in my post.”
        .
        You decided to whip out the “Look at these ‘smart people’ and their ‘smart works’ that say that faith is irrational and religion is dangerous” card as if it that means that the idea being expressed is not displaying some level of stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry. I pointed out that such works exist on any number of topics that are in fact filled with varying degrees of stupidity, hate, intolerance and/or bigotry. Of course it has a foundation and bearing on what you said in your post and you know it does. So of course you’re ducking the issue.
        .
        It’s also not much of a defense when saying something that’s stupid, hate filled, intolerant and/or bigoted to point to someone else and say that they’re smarter than you and they said the same thing more eloquently than you could hope to. You made a comment about religion that showed stupidity and showed some degree of hate, intolerance and bigotry towards religion and the religious. I don’t care if you can point to an academic who says what you say any more than I ever cared if the bigot who hates black people points out an academic who say the same thing about blacks that they do. It still shows levels of stupidity, hate, intolerance and bigotry irregardless as did your remark directed towards religion.
        .
        Tom Keller: January 2, 2012 at 12:42 am – “If you look carefully at my post, you’ll see I called faith irrational, not dangerous.”
        .
        Nice attempt at deception. You may have noticed that blogs, unlike some other forms of communication, keep a permanent record of statements typed and posted.
        .
        Tom Keller: December 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm – “My only problem with Maher is his support of PETA. I fully support him ridiculing religion any chance he gets. Religion is dangerous.
        .
        Jerry Chandler: December 29, 2011 at 8:50 pm
        .
        “Religion is dangerous.”
        .
        “So to can stupidity, hate, intolerance and bigotry be dangerous. Thanks for displaying some so everyone is reminded what it looks like.”
        .
        You are trying to link my response to a comment you made to a different comment you made and then pretend that you really didn’t say what I responded to to begin with. You’d look a little better and a lot less disingenuous in your postings if you just fessed up to saying something stupid instead of claiming that you didn’t say it while simultaneously trying to defend what you originally said.
        .
        “If you look carefully at my post, you’ll see I called faith irrational, not dangerous. That said, I think it is dangerous to believe something with no evidence for it – the definition of faith.”
        .
        You so funny. Too bad it’s in the O.o way and not the ha-ha way.
        .
        In two sentences, in two sentences that are back to back with no other sentences or words between them, you state that you didn’t say that faith is dangerous, but then state that faith is in fact dangerous. Logic and building reasoned arguments to support your POV aren’t your strong point, are they?
        .
        “History shows the danger of religion. As I wrote earlier, I refer you to the works of the above-named gentlemen.”
        .
        Oh, look, you’re back to making the same statement that I originally responded to that you wanted to play games about admitting to have said in the first place. Maybe you are ha-ha funny after all.
        .
        “If you can’t tell the difference between the thing and the people, then your stupid. If you refuse to let yourself see the difference, then you suffer from hate, intolerance and/or bigotry on top of the stupidity.”
        .
        “Again, straw man. Nothing in my post indicates what you are arguing.”
        .
        Of course there was. It exists in the fact that you chose to say that religion is what’s dangerous and not in fact the people that misuse and abuse religion. You then doubled down on that idea just now by stating yet again that faith is dangerous. So you have twice made clear now that religion/faith is what you see as dangerous rather than the people who misuse and abuse it.
        .
        You’re very bad at defending statements of yours that show some levels or forms of stupidity, hate, intolerance and bigotry. Why don’t you just go ahead and quit while you’re ahead?

      6. You do know that faith and religion are two different things, right?

        Anyway, I’m done with this argument. Your only form of arguing seems to be creating straw men and making personal attacks.

      7. .
        Tom Keller – January 2, 2012 at 1:38 am: “You do know that faith and religion are two different things, right?
        .
        .
        Tom Keller – December 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm: “Religion is dangerous.”
        .
        Tom Keller – January 2, 2012 at 12:42 am: “If you look carefully at my post, you’ll see I called faith irrational, not dangerous. That said, I think it is dangerous to believe something with no evidence for it – the definition of faith.”
        .
        “History shows the danger of religion.”
        .
        .
        And since you’ve attacked both now and called both dangerous, your comment that faith and religion are different things as a response to being called out on what you said isn’t meaningless…how?
        .
        Anyway, I’m done with this argument.”
        .
        Good move on your part. Constructing intelligent and coherent arguments just don’t seem to be your strong
        points.
        .
        “Your only form of arguing seems to be creating straw men and making personal attacks.”
        .
        No, it’s not the only form of arguing that I choose to use when arguing something, but it’s recently been becoming my first go to choice when dealing with stupid people making making either hateful or bigoted comments like yours.

    4. Tom,
      Jerry responded to more eloquently than I could or care to right now. But I do feel bad that you view religion as dangerous and don’t see the great good that has been in it’s name as well.

  21. My main problem with Bill Maher is his utter tactlessness. Sometimes saying something bluntly is absolutely necessary. Other times it either pours salt on fresh wounds (see for example his post-9/11 lauding of the bravery of suicide bombers) or it alienates potential allies to his point of view. In many ways, Maher reminds me of a kid poking a sharp stick at rabid animals locked in a cage. Usually the kid manages to get away unscathed, but when he doesn’t…

    1. I think you need to remember the context within which Maher was speaking. The oft-repeated statement was to describe the assault on the Twin Towers as a “cowardly act.” To Maher, it was clearly a matter of semantics. His point was that it could easily be argued that lobbing cruise missiles at people from two thousand miles away was a cowardly way of waging a war. On the other hand, putting yourself on an airplane, knowing that you were going to die, could be described as many things, but “cowardly” wasn’t one of them.
      .
      There is a WORLD of difference between saying someone “wasn’t cowardly” and that they were “brave.” Not being cowardly doesn’t eliminate such descriptors as “insane,” “fanatic,” “total douche bags,” etc. But that didn’t matter to conservatives who’d been gunning for Maher anyway; disdaining the subtle point Maher was making, they went for the polar opposite of cowardly, namely brave, and stuck that word in Maher’s mouth. And by the sheer repetition of it, they convinced the credulous that Maher said they were brave–which he never said–in the exact same way that they convinced people that Al Gore said he invented the Internet when he never said that.
      .
      PAD

      1. Maher was done in because he does not understand semantics. The 9/11 hijackers were fearless, not brave. They were cowards who targeted civillian aircaft, bringing along unwilling hostages along on their act of war. They also targeted the WTC, a civillian building, and caused the deaths of hundreds of civillian firefighters in New York. They were 100% fearless and 100% cowardly.

        Lobbing a cruise missile at a civillian target is cowardly. Lobbbing a cruise missile at a military target during a war is not cowardly, its called “Making some other son of a bìŧçh die for his country”. The problem with lobbing cruise missiles is when you miss your target and hit civillians by accident.

        Incidentally, Maher seems to be arguing that using missiles is cowardly because you don’t see the face of the enemy you killed. This sounds bizarre coming from someone who, to my understanding, has neither served in the armed forces and is not a member of the SCA.

      2. .
        And, despite the popular talking point that it has become, he never called them brave.
        .
        “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.”
        .
        “Not cowardly” does not automatically equal “brave” by any stretch of the imagination. It also created one of the most surreal quotes that I never would have considered seeing in my most fevered imagination.
        .
        “”People went bonkers!” Limbaugh exclaimed. “This was, in my mind, one of the few things Bill Maher has ever said that’s correct. In a way, he was right.””
        .
        http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=11612

      3. Lobbing a cruise missile at a civillian target is cowardly.
        .
        How many news stories do you want of our military hitting civilian targets with missiles?
        .
        Sure, we may not do it intentionally, but it happens nonetheless, and these incidents of which there are far too many are entirely relevant.
        .
        This sounds bizarre coming from someone who, to my understanding, has neither served in the armed forces and is not a member of the SCA.
        .
        And how does this matter in the least?

      4. @Craig: so you really believe there is no difference between intentionally destroying a building full of civillians and accidentally destroying a building of civillians while trying to wage war against a combatant who deliberately embeds himself in the building? Does it make a difference if, after you realize your mistake, you send an emergency team to help the survivors? Please enlighten me.

      5. To be fair, PAD, emotions were extremely raw then. This was sooo soon after 9/11.
        .
        It would be like someone saying someone’s ex wasn’t bad looking or that a politician someone loathed wasn’t extreme.
        .
        The implication is that you are saying she’s hot or they’re moderate and possibly likable.
        .
        The elimination of a negative equals a positive to many, and NO ONE wanted to hear anything that even seemed remotely like it was putting the hijackers in a positive light.
        .
        Whether intentional or not, right or not, the reaction was understandable.

  22. If a satirist isn’t annoying the powerful, then he isn’t doing his job right. And Christians are the most powerful social group in the US, despite the delusions of persecution some of them may suffer from. Only Christians can become US Presidents. Only Christians have their patriotism considered unassailable.
    .
    OTOH, I have zero problem with people being overtly Christian in their public life, as long as they don’t harm other people or try to limit other people’s choices. Bill Maher is being an annoying áššhølë, but it’s expected of satirists once in a while.
    .
    An interesting tidbit. There are evangelicals out there who watch HBO and Showtime. A co-worker of mine is both and Evangelical and a fan of Californication.

    1. “Only Christians can become US Presidents. Only Christians have their patriotism considered unassailable.”
      .
      I would disagree with both. The former has at least the benefit of not yet having been proven incorrect (or maybe not–I have heard some people argue that many of the founding fathers were not Christians in any true sense, not sure if that includes Washington, Jefferson, etc). And the second part is just untrue. Nobody has their patriotism considered unassailable. Who are you thinking of?

      1. .
        “Only Christians have their patriotism considered unassailable.”
        .
        What? I missed that one before. Rene, what country are you looking at?
        .
        Obama is a Christian. His patriotism is questioned all of the time. Clinton had his (and hers for that matter) questioned by the Right and the conservative pundits. Hëll, there’s a sizable chunk of the fringe on both sides of the political spectrum that points at the other side and declares that they’re not really patriotic because of fill-in-the-blank reason.
        .
        If someone wants to smear you with that particular smear, they don’t look at your religion and then decide that they can’t use it because you’re a Christian.

      2. Obama is not a real Christian. He is a Muslim Atheist.
        .
        Not all Christians are Undisputed American Patriots. But all Undisputed American Patriots are Christians. Being a Christian is a necessary condition if you want to aspire to the higher, holy condition of Undisputed American Patriot.
        .
        As for the founding fathers, the reality-based community may say they were deists, but what do they know? No namby-pamby, flip-flopping, pointy-headed academic deist can be a True American. Of course they were Evangelicals.

    2. @Rene: You might want to actually read the US Constitution once in your life. Here’s a juicy tidbit from Article VI:

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      How crazy is that? No religious test! (“Test is capitalized in the original text of Article VI.) That means that Jews, Muslims, Mormon, Buddhists, Hindus and even atheists are allowed to run for and hold office in the United States! As Yakov Smirnov said, “What a country!”

      1. I am aware of that. I was refering to that unwritten law – public oppinion – that is often more powerful than constitutions.
        .
        Legally, Christians aren’t superior to anyone else in the US. Socially, they are. The social pyramid, as regarding religions, is more or less as follow in the US: Evangelical Christians > Catholics, Jews, Mormons > Buddhists, Hindus > Atheists > Muslims.
        .
        Before 9/11, I’d rate Muslims before Atheists.

      2. .
        “You might want to actually read the US Constitution once in your life. Here’s a juicy tidbit from Article VI:”
        .
        You’re reading what he’s saying, but missing the point. The US Constitution is irrelevant to the discussion we’re having. We’re not discussing laws, we’re discussing the mindset of the people in the country.
        .
        The US Constitution may say that, but that didn’t stop the people of this country from saying that they would never elect a Catholic to high office for the longest time. The US Constitution may have that in it, but that is still not going to stop the people from applying that test themselves and, at least right now, not electing someone as President of the United States because they’re a practicing Muslim or an publicly known atheist.
        .
        Rene was also not saying that Obama is a Muslim Atheist. He was responding to me and saying what many of the people attacking his patriotism would say that he is.

    3. @Renee: Obama is not an atheist. Technically, according to Sharia law he is Muslim, since Sharia follows patrilineal descent. But Rene, how can you be a patriotic American and subscribe to patrilineal descent according to Sharia? That is illogical!

      (PS: Obama is not a practicing Muslim. He is a practicing Christian, as evidenced by his joining Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s kooky kongregation.)

      1. @Rene: Verbal irony and sarcasm are not identical. After re-reading your rant, I can see the sarcasm I missed on a more casual read-through earlier.

      2. Bill, I was using hyperbole. But let’s say that I see a lot more people having their patriotism challenged when they have a more secular outlook. Not only in the US, the same thing is true here in Brazil, to some extent.
        .
        God and country often go hand in hand, and if you don’t believe in one, a lot of people think you don’t believe in the other too.
        .
        And that is part of the whole rotten viewpoint that, if you has questions and doubts about the actions of your own country, then you must hate your country.

      3. .
        Yeah, that’s the interesting mental short circuit in many conservative Christians. They decry the situations found in other countries where theocracies have been formed and talk about how those theocracies are so oppressive to the minority religions, yet they simultaneously push for and campaign to create a theocracy here in this country. The more extreme right and the conservative Evangelical Christians will point to theocracies around the world and discuss how wrong such a thing is, but the more or less say that they want something like that here through their words and actions.
        .
        And one action that they seem to love is declaring that office holders have to be Christian or they have to hit the bricks.
        .
        To be fair, they’re not entirely alone in that specific action or even in general activities such as that. The sad truth is that we as humans tend to still tend to act as mass populations in ways that resemble old tribe mentality no matter the religious, political or national orientations. We gravitate towards what we see as “us” and we often see in others what we view as their best qualities the things that we agree with and/or see as the best of ourselves.
        .
        We may like to see ourselves as greatly evolved mentally and socially from our ancestors huddling in caves and hunting dinner down with sticks and strings or leather and stone, but the sad truth is that we all still share things in common with them as well. Even you and even me. You and I may not always be as bad about some others out there (or at least don’t always see our actions as being as bad,) but I don’t think that any of us don’t engage in tribe mentality from time to time.
        .
        The best we can do is try not to do it often and, the thing that many of the hard right Evangelicals need to learn, not try and force our mentality on everyone else or discriminate against them for not being a part of “our tribe.”

  23. I share Peter’s issue with most boycotts. It’s not about expression but ending expression. I think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are offensive bullies. I don’t listen to either of them and usually make a point of ripping them apart if I happen to come across an odious statement. What boycotters do is contact the advertisers of their shows and say, “I don’t listen to these shows but I will stop buying your products if you continue to advertise.” That’s offensive to me and it doesn’t counter the lies with truth, it just suppresss them.

  24. This is why I steer clear of responding on message boards. Trying to have a civil discussion on a controversial topic always degrades into personal attacks.

    1. I agree with you Tom K.

      Some of these sites should have rules or a person responsible for policing the content.

      We’re all adults here and I left my angry and name calling phase 15 yrs ago.

      I noticed no matter how good an argument can be, it’s tough changing opinions.

      Funny how the internet has made some people real brave, those same people wouldn’t call you those types of names to your face.

      1. .
        Jose.S,
        .
        Just for the record and as can easily be shown here –
        .
        http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/12/27/you-know-how-im-always-ragging-on-boycotts/comment-page-1/#comment-612460
        .
        – you were not called any names until you lied about what had been said and then, when that was pointed out to you, doubled down on the lie and insisted that it was true because of some bizarre bit of logic about the time that posts were made. That being the case, you even even less grounds for complaining than someone like Tom does.
        .
        But feel free to do so. It might be good for a laugh.

    2. Jerry I don’t what you are taking about and I won’t click on your link.

      I didn’t lie and like i said calling people names is childish and done by people who aren’t brave enough to do it face to face.

      I don’t know who called me a name and don’t care, like i said they are cowards.

      And my comment was to Tom so why don’t you mind your own business for once.

      1. .
        The link is merely a bump up this very page to where you did exactly what I said you did. it shows you making up something that wasn’t actually said so that you could argue against it and then, when that was pointed out to you, you making the nonsensical claim that it was true despite the fact that it wasn’t.
        .
        I can understand your not wanting to acknowledge that fact while attempting to claim victim status here.
        .
        Have a nice night now.
        .
        🙂

    3. Now i’m looking back at the comments on this topic and all I see is you jumping on other peoples comments seconds after they made it, starting mindless arguments, endlessly going back and forth and calling people names.

      I now even saw your name calling about me. Even if i lied, there is no reason to call me names, be a man a point it out.

      But i guess you’re to chicken to do that.

      My response was to Tom and not anybody in particular.

      But heck, since you called me stupid for not agreeing with your point , Jerry your a moron get a life and gets some guts, stop hiding behind the internet.

      1. .
        Calling names, Jose? My, what have you come to?
        .
        “I now even saw your name calling about me. Even if i lied, there is no reason to call me names, be a man a point it out.”
        .
        You mean, point it out to you exactly like I did before deciding that you were either trolling or just too stupid for words only to have you, despite reality showing otherwise, insist that a comment that existed only in your mind actually existed on the blog itself and thus showing me at that point that you really were trolling or just too stupid for words? I was actually being fairly polite to you until that point.
        .
        And if you think that I’m a coward or just hiding behind the internet to be mean, well, you’re wrong. First, I’m not new here. I have had the odd flame out with people, but so long as people don’t try to outright lie to me in a discussion as you did, are deliberately stupid or say things that are bigoted and/or hateful; I can be quite nice and reasonable. And there are several people who post here that I’ve met in real life and who have hung out with and around me. They can tell you quite honestly that even in real life I don’t tolerate liars, the deliberately stupid or the bigoted well.
        .
        And if you really get so offended so quickly by someone stating that they’ve come to the conclusion that you’re either trolling or just too stupid for words, well, maybe you should avoid making statements that are completely untrue and then, after having that fact pointed out to you in a less than insulting manner, doubling down and declaring that the lie you wrote is true. That’s not you simply disagreeing with someone, that’s you telling lies. Bit of a different thing on your part and it gets a bit of a different response.
        .
        There, I’ve been nice and offered you some helpful and friendly advice.
        .
        🙂
        .
        Have a nice night. You can have the last word if you want, I’m done with the conversation now.

      2. .
        Calling names, Jose? My, what have you come to?
        .
        “I now even saw your name calling about me. Even if i lied, there is no reason to call me names, be a man a point it out.”
        .
        You mean, point it out to you exactly like I did before deciding that you were either trolling or just too stupid for words only to have you, despite reality showing otherwise, insist that a comment that existed only in your mind actually existed on the blog itself and thus showing me at that point that you really were trolling or just too stupid for words? I was actually being fairly polite to you until that point.
        .
        And if you think that I’m a coward or just hiding behind the internet to be mean, well, you’re wrong. First, I’m not new here. I have had the odd flame out with people, but so long as people don’t try to outright lie to me in a discussion as you did, are deliberately stupid or say things that are bigoted and/or hateful; I can be quite nice and reasonable. And there are several people who post here that I’ve met in real life and who have hung out with and around me. They can tell you quite honestly that even in real life I don’t tolerate liars, the deliberately stupid or the bigoted well.
        .
        And if you really get so offended so quickly by someone stating that they’ve come to the conclusion that you’re either trolling or just too stupid for words, well, maybe you should avoid making statements that are completely untrue and then, after having that fact pointed out to you in a less than insulting manner, doubling down and declaring that the lie you wrote is true. That’s not you simply disagreeing with someone, that’s you telling lies. Bit of a different thing on your part and it gets a bit of a different response.
        .
        There, I’ve been nice and offered you some helpful and friendly advice.
        .
        🙂
        .
        Have a nice night. You can have the last word if you want, I’m done with the conversation now.

  25. Well calling you names is me sinking down to your adolescent level.

    Jerry you just don’t get the point Tom and I are trying to make do you?

    First all, the “lie” you keep talking about Peter David corrected me like a man.

    And he said Maher never said they were brave, it’s just a much repeated conservative talking point.

    A talking point that i thought was true, so I didn’t lie I really thought Maher said that.

    But that’s beside the point, who cares what Maher said and says.

    The point is you resort to name calling which is childish, stupid and cowardly. Just disagree like a man, but you can’t.

    Calling somebody stupid is not polite and you wouldn’t do it to a strangers face, but you hide behind the internet.

    Do i get offended by a idiot like you calling me stupid? Of course, nobody likes to be called stupid.

    Tom and Sean didn’t like being called names, so it’s just not me.

    You are calling me sensitive but you get all upset when a stranger lies to you? Gee you sound pretty sensitive me.

    Right or wrong you don’t call people names over the net, that’s that’s the point Tom and I are making.

    Yes, you are a coward for not calling people names to their faces.

    1. .
      Okay, this I will respond to now because it goes to the heart of your problems.
      .
      Jose.S” “First all, the “lie” you keep talking about Peter David corrected me like a man. And he said Maher never said they were brave, it’s just a much repeated conservative talking point. A talking point that i thought was true, so I didn’t lie I really thought Maher said that.”
      .
      See, right here, this is a perfect example of why I finally decided that you were trolling or stupid. In my last few posts, I said you said something to me that was not correct, that I then pointed out that what you said was not true and that you then doubled down on what you said and insisted that it was true. I even made specific mention of your bizarre and irrelevant bit of “logic” about the time that posts were made that was somehow meant to be proof presented by you that you’re statement was factual. So here you are now saying that the exchange I’m referring to was something that you said to Peter and that Peter then corrected you on.
      .
      Since you seem to having issues with both your memory and your reading comprehension skills, I’ll copy and paste the pertinent parts of the exchange for you. You can find the full posts in the thread above.
      .
      .
      Jose.S – December 29, 2011 at 7:54 pm: (In reference to Peter’s post) “Lets be honest, he said he goes after conservatives more, or did you not read that part?”
      .
      Jerry Chandler – December 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm: “No, I didn’t read “that part.” I didn’t read “that part” because, outside of your most recent post, it doesn’t exist. He said that Maher goes after people on all sides of the political spectrum and in that statement he is correct. If you would like to present an argument against what he actually said and what I happen to agree with, then feel free to do so. If you’re going to argue against something neither of us said and claim that one or the other of us did say it… well… it’s going to be a short discussion because you’re going to quickly find yourself talking to yourself.”
      .
      Jose.S – December 29, 2011 at 10:01 pm: “I wrote on my post at at 335pm and you responded at 641pm and your last post was at 844pm. So it did exist”
      .
      .
      You claimed that the statement was made in the discussion on this blog by someone other than you that Bill Maher went after conservatives more than he went after others. That statement never existed on this blog in any post other than your post where you made that claim. I pointed out this fact. You then doubled down on the stupid and declared rather insanely that a comment that was not made did in fact exist based on the time of your and my posts.
      .
      So here you are being obtuse yet again, either by deliberate act or by simple inability to be other than what you are, and denying what you said above despite the fact that it’s in print, in the blog and easily checkable and claiming that your actions that I clearly referenced were something other than they were.
      .
      If you can’t grasp these simple facts, that saying things you make up and then claiming you didn’t is the act known as “telling lies” and that then ignoring that specific action to try and pretend that you didn’t do it makes you look a bit dense, then you are indeed rather stupid. If you’re simply refusing to grasp them, then you’re trolling. Not really too many other options available to describe such actions.
      .
      If you’re actually attempting to double down on the stupidity and play victim on top of that; you’re both stupid beyond words and a troll.

  26. Jerry the more I read your bizarre rants the more i think you are retarded.

    You keep splitting hairs and agrueing the same dumb point over and over again.

    You dissect each word, turn it into an unreadable nine paragraph crap and it makes you sound like the rain man.

    We already argued this point to death to the extent I don’t even what we are talking about anymore.

    Maher never said the 9/11 terrorist were brave, but that’s what I got from his statement.

    Maher has said he goes after conservatives more and that’s what Maher said and I believe him, and I also don’t care.

    If you disagree with those two points, I don’t care. You can write a whole book about why you disagree.

    I came on here scrolled down and read Tom’s post, I agreed with him and never even mentioned your name.

    I never said I was a victim. I victim of what a coward like you. Nah

    But around 30min after my post you take what I said personally and acted like a hurt 12 year old girl.

    And you keep rambling about people lying to you and the same old argument over and over again.

    You have to much time on your hands and you have metal issues.

    I don’t think you’re being mean when you call people names I think you’re being a coward.

    My point is your a coward and scared little man and you think you make yourself look smart by doing all this.

    But you’re making yourself look mentally ill.

    1. It has been my experience that “scared little man” is a fair description of many on the web, but not Jerry. He is a long time participant here who is not afraid to speak his mind and sign his full name to his opinions, which already puts him ahead of about 95 percent of participants. In a dispute, I generally find Jerry’s reasoning to be far superior to others, and he’s one of the few people here who, if he disagrees with me, would actually prompt me to reconsider my opinion. Not to mention that calling anyone retarded in this day and age is a dubious tactic at best. If you’re at all interested in making your opinions persuasive, you might want to try a different approach. Of course, you could just argue that you don’t care about trying to persuade anyone with your opinions, but if so, then why bother stating them? For self gratification? But what is the sound of one hand clapping?
      .
      And knock off the “like a man” thing. I’m as big a fan of macho posturing as anyone else, but this is like six times in one thread. Enough already.
      .
      PAD

      1. My apologizes Peter what set me off is the name calling, but me of all people should know better and just ignore it.

        My temper got the better of me and when I’m angry grammar isn’t my main concern.

        My apologizes to all.
        I will stop

      2. No, Rene it’s a spelling error made by a man deliriously tired at four in the morning and kicking myself for getting caught up in this again.
        And yes, you made me laugh

        Jose Sarduy

      3. Jose S.,
        Jerry Chandler is one of the more articulate, intelligent posters here. he is one of the few here who actually give me food for thought and occasionally make me reconsider my positions. Unlike PAD – and as anyone who frequents this board knows – I am to the Right.
        .
        But it doesn’t matter because Jerry is not an ideologue. He views things through what he sees as facts and then makes persuasive arguments.
        .
        Your insults toward him are not appreciated

      4. You’re right Jerome and thats why I apologized.

        But we were both insulting eachother.

        To me, calling a person stupid is just as much as an Insult as what I said.

        Jose Sarduy

      5. Been away for a few days and didn’t intend to make any more responses, but I can’t resist. PAD, you’re defending Jerry Chandler’s reasoning ability?! Seriously? In his argument with me the only thing I saw were straw man arguments and name-calling. You disappoint me, PAD.

        That’s it! I’m boycotting PAD products! 😉

    2. “I victim of what a coward like you”
      .
      Resist we much?
      .
      When arguing (or is that “agrueing”?)that someone smarter than you is actually dumber than you here’s a free tip: proofread.
      .
      “I victim of what a coward like you.” yeah, he’s retarded! Normally I would ignore grammatical errors, people in glass houses and all, but when the crux of your, um, agruement, is that someone else is stupid, well, fair game.
      .
      Are you new to this forum? Because i can assure you, nobody that matters is impressed with this line of internet trolling.

      1. .
        I wouldn’t bust chops over the wording, Bill. From the consistent manner in how he writes certain things and makes the same tense errors and drops the same certain words in sentences, I simply assumed that English is not his first or primary language. Some of his written phrasing reads like some of the speech of friends of mine that are new to the country and still getting the hand of the language. Yes, we have people here who are from other countries and type the language quite well, but they’ve also been familiarizing themselves with the language for a good long time now.
        .
        My issues with him ( and Tom and, to a degree, Sean) where stemming from what was said, not how it was said. Well, that and, as I said over on Facebook in the early AM, I think my midlife crisis is taking a different form than most people that I know.
        .
        And I really don’t care and am not bothered in the least if someone calls me a coward or retarded on this blog. I’ve had people both unarmed and with various small hand weapons about their person and too much alcohol in them inform me that they were going to hurt me. Didn’t stop me from doing my job and dealing with them. I’ve stood on the line of a full scale riot with people throwing rocks at us from the tops of two and three story buildings and been more concerned with moving to protect guys in trouble than whether or not I might get hurt as well (although, not being careless about it either.)
        .
        I’m gonna care if some anonymous blank on a blog calls me a coward? Please….
        .
        But thanks to you both for the words of defense and the complements. I’ll try to reign in my midlife crisis cranky towards the things that strike me as bigoted, hateful or extremely stupid a bit and try to be a bit more deserving in future of such praise and defense.

      2. Oh, I know, and as I said, there is nobody on Earth who can least afford to cast stones at creative spelling than I can…but I saw my opportunity and took it.
        .
        You sure picked a bad time–an election year!–to manifest this particular midlife crisis. If the evidence so far indicates a trend there will be enough willful mendacity and stupidity to really set you off. I may have to replace your bullets with lifelike chocolate ones, which could lead to a situation that will later be described as “hideously tragic yet oddly hilarious.”

      3. I was wondering if the mention of Jerry’s metal issues was an attack on his taste in music.

      4. .
        I have very serious metal issues. There hasn’t been a really, really good new metal band to come down the pike in years now. Amazingly, Fozzy has turned out to be not so bad. That freaked me out when I heard one of their singles about a year ago on XM while driving down the road and didn’t know who it was until after the some was over. They went from being a pure cover band act with an almost joke concept, a lead singer who it was hard to take seriously and kinda bad sounding to being fairly good.
        .
        Too hit and miss on their last album though.

      5. Bill, I’m operating on the assumption that English is his second language. My guess, from his Spanish first name and his Cuban surname is that his primary tongue is Spanish, and to that end I’ll just say his English is way better than my Spanish (or French). So I don’t see any need to bust his chops over pronoun troubles.
        .
        Jerry: I never actually had the opportunity to have a mid-life crisis. I was too busy dealing with my then-wife having her midlife crisis. Other guys have a mid-life crisis, they get a motorcycle. Me, I wound up with a divorce. So that was festive.
        .
        PAD

    3. No, Rene it’s a spelling error made by a man deliriously tired at four in the morning and kicking myself for getting caught up in this again.
      And yes, you made me laugh

      Jose Sarduy

  27. The gospel of Jesus is far from tolerance and live and let-live. His message is that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. He came to give a gift, His life, as payment for all our transgressions. In order to receive that gift, all one has to do is accept the fact that they cannot win, work, or bribe their way to eternal salvation. It is a gift, but God will not tolerate coming to Him any other way. He loves everyone and will give everyone their true heart’s desire. If one rejects God, and Jesus’ message here, then He will not torture them by making them spend eternity in Heaven. He will reward them, with eternal separation from Him. For His followers, we must proclaim the Truth, in love, to all. That is not a live and let-live philosophy.

      1. You are pretty close there Peter.
        Cuban Father Spanish mother.

        My primary language is English but growing up in a very Spanish community in Corona Queens, we mostly spoke Spanglish. Then I moved to Miami and all they spoke there was Spanish, that’s one of the reasons I moved back to NYC.

        The elementary school, High school and the Army, ran a few test on me and each time they told me I was Dyslexic, but the Army took me in anyway. LOL
        Even my college professors came to the same conclusion.

        In my day time job as a HR manager half of our employees are spanish, so I spend half the time speaking Spanish and the other half speaking English, and writing a post when I’m annoyed and tired doesn’t help either.

        I remember writing a 200 page employee manual, that the CFO loved but he said, “Jose, your grammar sucks ášš”. LOL

        Jose Sarduy

      1. Well, with Cain, Perry, and Bachmann all (or all but) out of the race, these types have to focus their attention somewhere.

      2. Bladestar name-calling and Craig putting down Christians yet again…then a few threads down the road they will say that the GOP is the party full of “intolerant” people.
        .
        Amusing.

      3. Yest it’s the conservative who want eveyone to be a christian and see it as ther duty to force their beliefs down everyone’s throat, including via force of law (anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, etc)

      4. including via force of law (anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, etc)
        .
        Don’t forget that Santorum wants to take all of the contraceptives away because he thinks sex should only be for procreation.
        .
        And yet supposedly we’re the ones with issues!? LOL.

    1. “If one rejects God, and Jesus’ message here, then He will not torture them by making them spend eternity in Heaven. He will reward them, with eternal separation from Him.”

      That’s it, right there. If I don’t want G-d in my life, G-d is perfectly willing to let me go. If I look at your life and ask “Why are you so happy?” And you reply “Because I have accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour.” And I then say “I am intrigued about this ‘Jesus’. Do you have any literature?” Then by all means, Witness. Witness your heart out.

      But otherwise, please show me the same respect that G-d does.

      1. You know, scratch that. it’s sounds defensive. And it is. But who I am really offended for is G-d.
        .
        “If you don’t need me, then I don’t need you either. But I am going to have my friends keep nagging you, forever and ever until you love me.”
        .
        That isn’t a caring Diety. That’s someone you are glad you no longer go to High School with. And then have to change your phone number.

  28. No, simply a proclamation of my belief system, written in a way that everyone can understand it, and simply pointing out that tolerance and live and let-live was not Jesus’ message. It was “Repent, and turn from your evil ways.” Just correcting an often misunderstood point. You will notice I will not name-call or demean you. Rejecting my explanation of what the gospel of Jesus is does not change that gospel. You are not rejecting me, but you are rejecting Him. It is said that the truth will be suppressed in unrighteousness. Your choice. Have a wonderful New Year!

    1. Actually, there is a lot of tolerance and live and let-live in Jesus’s message as proclaimed by you, if one pays attention to one important fact: you have to accept Jesus’s message sincerely, in your heart, of your own free will.
      .
      But once Christianity became essentialy a secular power, with huge social, economic, and political power, it has tried to manipulate, intimidate, or coerce people into joining. In olden times, by swordpoint and gunpoint. In more recent days, by social pressure, by Christian-influenced legislation, by economic pressure (i.e. boycotts).
      .
      It sort of defeats the purpose of Jesus’s own gospel.

  29. Yes, God will tolerate you not accepting His gift. Just as I will. He created you with free will. But, for His followers, proclaiming His message is not a choice, and therefore not a live and let-live type of thing. My only attempt here is to correct the often misinterpreted meaning of His message. We are all sinners saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus alone. No other way is tolerated. But, you have the choice.
    I’m not even going to touch socio-political economic subjects here. Nor am I agreeing or disagreeing with boycotts (though my opinion is they often do not work).

    1. I am not a Christian, but I understand what you’re saying. Proclaiming His message is not a choice, for true Christians. And I would not call that intolerant or anti-democratic. In a free society, people can proclaim whatever they want. More power to Tebow, says I.
      .
      As long as Christian only try to persuade us of their message, that is okay by me.

    2. “No other way is tolerated.”

      Right, sure, call the cops now, the loonies are loose…

      1. .
        “No other way is tolerated.”
        “Right, sure, call the cops now, the loonies are loose…”

        .
        Not yet, it depends. Most Christians that I know believe that a component of their faith is to spread the gospel. The religion’s teachings are designed with inbuilt recruitment instructions. In that respect, Eric Butler is correct that, for many Christians, they see the teachings as not giving you any choice in the matter.
        .
        It’s still a live and let live issue for them though because they will make the attempt, but respect my right or others the meet to not partake of or convert to their specific brand of Christianity. They’re hardly loonies for their beliefs. Eric may not fall under that label either if he’s just addressing this as a fact.
        .
        Where it leaves live and let live behind and enters into the actions of the loonies is when they decide that there’s no other way to be tolerated for you. They enter the land of the loonies when they will not accept your repeated requests to leave you alone and leave the topic of the need for your conversion alone. They enter the land of the mega-loonies when their continued refusal to accept your position on the matter gets so bad that a third party has to step in and tell them to chill it out a bit and then, after refusing to leave you in peace on the matter until forced to, declare that their being oppressed and victims.
        .
        And it certainly was well into the land of the loony when in various periods of our history we saw the proclaiming of “His” message in the form of conversion or death.
        .
        Don’t really know fully where Eric stands on where the line of “proclaiming His message” and forcing one’s opinion on others whether they want to hear it or not is or what counts in his book as crossing it. Don’t care really. His basic statement is correct. Beyond that, it’s up to him and others to take the steps of being sane people of faith or going the path of the obnoxious or, as you put it, the loonies.

      1. You mean, where Bachmann, the weakest of the viable conservatives, left, leaving a more consolidated conservative vote to best Romney? Where Perry – who you ignorantly proclaimed as being out of the race – has decided the “countey is in trouble” and he’s “all in”? In which Santorum came across as connecting to the middle class workers who have been hurt by this economy – a theme that should resonate in places like South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio? In which we are guaranteed a barrage by Gingrich that will either kill Romney or make him stronger? And in which Ron Paul looks like he may finally go away, or at least any possible relevance he has to the campaign?
        .
        This is a long campaign with many serious issues to discuss. Virtually no one – from the New York Times to Fox – is discussing them. So I welcome more time to the candidates get their message out and have people have a say in the process of selecting a nominee.
        .
        This is a presidential election, not freaking “American Idol”.

    1. .
      Well, enjoy the popcorn and have fun without me. I’ve made my only posts on the topic above (and I suppose this one.) Can’t really say more on the topic now beyond again pointing out that religion and faith aren’t the problems so much as some of the religious and the faithful and that a problem that some of the religious and the faithful do have is not knowing when they should just accept the fact that their person preferences and beliefs are just that; theirs.
      .
      It is, to bring it back to the original thread topic, a bit like those who choose to just exercise their freedom of choice VS feeling the need to take everyone else’s away via a boycott. Everyone should be allowed the right to make their own choices in life so long as their choices do not actively cause harm to others. Unfortunately, there’s always a small group of people who want to take that away from us and usually declare their action as being done for our best good.
      .
      Such is life.
      .
      Microwave or stove top popcorn? Makes a difference. On the stove and fresh tastes so much better.

      1. I’m all for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Mormons or atheists or whatever want to promote their religion, it’s their right.
        .
        That said, I can’t say I’m very appreciative of the effort. Not a big fan of proselytizing. I don’t have much sympathy for the need of religions to go to people who have other cultures, other religions and try to get them to convert to your version of the “true faith”. Even when it is done peacefully and politely, I can’t help but feel there is something rude and disrespectful about it. Do it if you believe that’s the right thing to do. I certainly won’t stop you. But I don’t like it.

  30. Mr. Jerry Chandler, thank you! You said it better than I could. Though I wish everyone would hear and believe, not all will. I simply read, what I saw as a misinterpreted, and abbreviated, gospel of Christ. I felt compelled to correct that, and at the same time share what i know to be the Good News. Now back to your regularly scheduled program…

  31. If you don’t like an artist’s opinions and they cross some personal line, don’t buy their stuff
    If you still like their stuff, but they have offended you, you have two options
    1. decide you don’t like them
    2. if it does not affect their particular area, screw it, ignore it and simply mutter “what a jerk”

    I don’t like boycotts for reasons
    1. they rarely actually hit who you think they do (see the boycott a particular gas station franchise)
    2. they are ineffective (yeah, you don’t like someone and tell everyone, well then, everyone who thinks you are an ášš is now their fan)
    3. it inevitably blows up in your face (don’t like Fox and want to tell everyone? Well, now marginal conservatives will watch it just to spite you)

    If you are a confirmed liberal, I understand that someone who is a conservative, like me, is your mortal enemy and you would sooner have me shot dead in front of children (A. Baldwin) than debate me but I hope that someday you will either calm down and deal with opposition rationally or be the victim of a purge of the left (as they are wont to do… either way, I’m good)

Comments are closed.