Yeah ! yer SO doggone funny there Pizza Man.More like Pizza Man with the Silly Putty face.And the Silly Putty brain. I mean,who died and putz this little half-jew piece of Sh!t in charge. Liberals that's who.And of course ABC.Who I thought had fired his little Half-ass Jew face.Yes,Maher was born half-jew and half-gentile. Man ... like is that enough for an entire sitcom er what. The little half-ass Jew boy who tries to make Non-liberals laugh. I mean,is his stand-up routine the biggest laugh gas a second on the planet er what.I mean,it's obvious he's SO doggone smart. He must be ... he's half-jew boy and half-gentile.Right there is enough to stop him at the airport and ask for his papers. And if he ain't got any,cut him some.And then stick right in his Liberal ass so he won't forget where they are next time. I mean,how better we are as a society to have this Pizza Man explaining things to us in such a funny liberal way. About as funny as a slow boat to China.And that's Off Season.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0"]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]
Nobody is more sure of themselves than Maher. He's the most arrogant, hypocritical, smug ass hat on television.
Really??? REALLY??? And Hannity or O'Reilly is not??? Are you kidding me? Oh and BTW- Maher usually backs his statements up with facts- a new concept to conservatives.
I obviously disagree with his leftist politics, but I really enjoy his views on religion, especially Islam. It is extremely rare to find a leftist who does not have a politically correct soft spot for Islam. He sees it for what it is, and he is actually pretty ballsy about it. Watch him with Congressman Keith Ellison. It's truly a thing of beauty. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVTK_XffAvk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVTK_XffAvk[/ame]
You think left-wing zionism is rare? The Israeli state had socialist parties in power for much of it's early existence. Similarly left-wing zionism is not at all rare in the US either. However, having established that, all Maher's views show, is that he is completely ignorant of the Middle East. He truly has no idea what he is talking about. Unlike most people on the right, I do admit that he is funny, but he is so often smug, closed minded, and simplistic of thought that I can't forgive it to see the humor. His views on Islam and the Middle East represent that closed minded simplicity perfectly. He is at least universally critical of religion, which I respect more than the the Zionists and right wing Christians who criticize Islam, and have religions that are so similar to Islam. However, Maher is still incredibly ignorant on this issue.
And, like always, you hope that simply calling someone "ignorant" is enough. You have not, and most likely cannot, explain what issues, if any, Maher does not understand correctly. Just so we are clear, you are calling Maher a "Zionist", correct? It's such a stupid thing to do, considering he has criticized extremely religious Jews as harshly as he has Christians and Muslims, but I just wanted to be clear that that is the argument you are making.
It takes a long time to debunk all the things he says that are wrong. The burden is not on me to disprove his absurdity, the burden is on him(and you if you support his views), because you are making the claims. However, I will raise a few points he often raises, and show them to be nonsense. First he says Islam supports a suicide culture. Suicide is strictly forbidden by the Quran. http://www.questionsonislam.com/question/why-committing-suicide-sin-islam He is always claiming that no one condemns the practices of the terrorists, which implicitly shows support. Except almost every major religious authority figure in the Muslim world condemns those attacks The highest religious Authority in Saudi Arabia Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Gran...ence-in-sermon,-experts-discuss-it-20120.html The highest religious authority in Iraq Ayatolah Sistani http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...gainst_extremism_and_terrorism_part_i_fatwas/ This last link shows a number of fatwas from multiple sources condemning terrorism. Next up, Maher is always claiming that Islam is leading people to do the things they do, and in fact it is Elison that is right on this issue, NOT Maher. There are no religious authorities who lead or support terrorist groups. Bin Laden was a political leader, and NOT a religious leader. So as Elison pointed out, the reasons behind al-Qaeda's actions are political and NOT religious. Next up, he talks about Islam being a medieval religion. A point I don't understand. It was established slightly before what we would describe as the Medieval period, but then again Christianity and Judaism are even older. I suppose he means they have not progressed politically since that time, but still that makes NO sense. Political Islam is a VERY modern development. The history of the 20th century in the Middle East was dominated by "modernizers" and "westernizers." The main ideologies that dominated in the Middle East were nationalism, socialism, capitalism, etc. It was only after the defeat in the 1967 war, and the failure of those modernizing governments adhering to western political ideologies, that those people stopped dominating. It also correlated to the rise of oil prices and production of oil in Saudi Arabia in the 60s and 70s, which meant more money in Saudi Arabia. Which meant money to increase Saudi influence, which meant proselytizing their unique and extreme brand of Islam. Until that point Saudi Arabia was sort of a backwater. Certainly the extremist Islam of the Najd, was mostly confined to the Najd(it hand't even spread to other parts of the Arabian peninsula at that time, as the Hijaz was still very urbane and modern). With the failure of the westernizing and modernizing governments in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc to provide prosperity, people began looking for alternatives. The salafists offered an alternative. They explained the failures were because Muslims were attempting to adopt western values and political ideologies, and were rejecting Islam, which was not only the word of God, but organically and authentically Middle Eastern. They explained that if only people would return to authenticism, instead of unsuccessfully trying to copy western ideologies, they would solve their problems. It also coincided with the reemergence of the Muslim brotherhood into countries where Nationalist leaders had received wide ranging support. So my point is, that this brand of Extremist Islam is entirely modern. It exists as a reaction to the failures of what people in the Middle East consider western ideologies. Without that modern context, the ideologies could not exist, so to pretend they are immodern, is nonsensical. Next up, he pretends that Islam is uniquely and particularly violent. When of course it isn't. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 This scholar claims the bible is MORE violent. I don't know if I accept that, but I can say that both books are violent, and looking for the cause of modern violence in those books is nonsensical. There is plenty of violence in both books, but what it does do is it complicates the absurd notion that Islam is uniquely violent. So one needs to look for other explanations for why al-Qaeda does the barbaric things that it does. Yet again, you arrive at political grievances, and possibly cultural specificities. I could keep going as well, I can do this all day. I think that is enough to start out with, especially since the burden is not on me to prove anything!! PS. You are aware that I am a graduate student in Middle Eastern studies at one of the top 5 Middle East programs in the country, yes? The idea that I wouldn't be able to blow Bill Maher out of the water on this issue is absurd!! PPS. Oh, and there are thousands of atheist zionists. Zionism is a political ideology, not a religious one. Maher is pretty clearly a zionist!!
I think he's admitted that he only used to say that because of the pot. No he's firmly on the left. There's not the least bit of libertarian in him.
The troubling part with Maher isn't his obvious Hatred and criticism of Religion,ALL Religion.It's the fact he gets a paycheck from Networks who otherwise Fire people for such infraction { Political Correctness } In other words it's entirely tolerable to knock down God,Christians and Jews for their " silly " Faith,but just dare slight a lesbian or a homosexual.This Maher creep personifies exactly what is wrong with our Society.A Society where common sense can seem so rare that Geese were given more by God.
Suicide maybe, but when it comes to suicide bombing, however, the meaning is different. Here is Qur'an 9:111 In Islam, the guarantee of heaven is a much more tenuous concept than it is in Christianity. Christians, for the most part, believe that if someone is baptized for the forgiveness of sins, then they are guaranteed to go to heaven as long as they continue following Christ's teachings. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that their sins will be put on a scale, and if their own Islamic good deeds do not outweigh the weight of the sins, they will go to hell. The only guaranteed way is found in the above scripture. If a Muslim dies fighting for Allah, they are guaranteed to go to heaven. Nowhere else in the Qur'an is this promise made. There are several theories on why September 11th was chosen, and one of them is that the date corresponds with Qur'an 9:111. Let's see if you like what the Sheikh said about this.... Do you like what he has to say here? So what? They have a very different idea of what constitutes "terrorism" than we do. They often say that they condemn the "killing of innocents", but what they don't tell you is that many Islamic extremists do not consider any non-Muslim to be innocent, since they are not accepting the guidance of Allah. These Muslims are employing taqiyya and kitman to deceive others and hide the true agenda of radical Islam. Some are honest about it, though.... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fliG1doz240"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fliG1doz240[/ame] This is pure nonsense. Politics are an inseparable part of Islam, the religion. OBL supported his calls for Sharia with healthy doses of religious belief, and quoted the Qur'an often. I know you'd love to separate OBL from Islam, but it's not going to happen. The rewriting of history is not going to work. It's quite simple. The ideal society in Islam is the world that existed under Muhammad's time. Sharia is not compatible with secularism, religious pluralism, capitalistic materialism (which is probably why so many leftists love Islam), or any of the other aspects of our modern civil society. It is stuck in the 7th century, and it wants to stay that way. The problem, is that they want to force us into that system, as well. Political Islam is not a modern phenomenon. Sharia is an inseparable part of Islam, and it has very clear instructions on how society is to be run. These rules have been in effect since their groundwork was laid in the Qur'an, 1400 years ago. What you are talking about is the reemergence of fundamentalist Islam during the last century. This is simply a movement that strives to bring Islam back to its roots and follow the Qur'an much more literally. Historically, Islam has spread through war and demographic conquest, and politics have always been a big factor in this. After the Muslim defeat at the Gates of Vienna in the 17th century, the Islamic world fell into a long period of decline that they just recently snapped out of. So, like most apologists, you would have to start history back in the 20th century to call this Islamist movement a "modern phenomenon". "Immodern"? If political Islam did not exist prior to the 20th century, how was so much land conquered for Islam starting with Muhammad and stretching out within 150 years after Muhammad's death?
It is indeed uniquely violent. Islam is the only major world religion that has explicit commands to wage war against unbelievers if they do not convert or agree to live as second class citizens. Most of the violence in the Bible is found in the Old Testament, which is seen by Christians as the rules from God that existed prior to the new covenant established with man through his son Jesus. Most modern Christian belief is based on the New Testament teachings and the following of Jesus, not Old Testament scripture. This is a very different situation in Islam. Thanks to the concept of abrogation, whenever two scriptures appear contradictory in the Qur'an, the one revealed later in Muhammad's life is the one considered to be valid. The 9th Sura, which was the last revealed book to Muhammad during his prophetic career, is the Sura that deals primarily with war, how to deal with non-Muslims, how to structure society to adhere to the standards of Sharia, etc. It is the most violent Sura in the Qur'an, and it is seen as the one that is most relevant to Muslims today. It abrogated many of the peaceful, more tolerant scriptures in the Qur'an, which were established much earlier in Muhammad's prophetic career. You were the one who made the claim that Maher is "ignorant", and you put forth nothing to back up that assertion. The burden was on you. Yay, another worthless liberal arts degree. Good luck finding a job. Oh, was that supposed to impress me? How is he a "Zionist"? If it's that clear, it should be easy to prove. Let's see it.
He claims to be a libertarian because he smokes pot. He's no libertarian. He's a straight up progressive liberal. He just gave the Obama campaign a million dollars.
Actually it's all a fix.It's rigged.Lefties are celebrated BIG TIME on Network TV.In fact,there are few examples of where a Conservative is ever celebrated on Network TV. So it literally takes NO courage whatever for a little silly putty face - Pizza Man - like Maher to have himself a real Good Time just mocking Conservatives as Stupid and a bunch of religious Hicks. But they'll come a day of reckoning when guys like Maher are seen for what they are,w/o need of any hoopla. Obviously Maher is not Religious.Nor Funny { unless being funny means using others,always others as the butt of a joke }.If he's Smart i fail to see how.Smart about what.? Being a smart-aleck.Smarting off about religion or having Moral backbone. Actually when one gets right down to it, - Pizza Man - is funny just because he IS.Kinda like Boogers or Farts or bad hair days. Funny IS as Maher Lives.May the twain have a good belly laugh in : Hell
On one of his shows, he tried to claim that Conservatives are grinch like, when most evidence you'll come across suggest otherwise... being that conservatives typically donate more to charitable causes. I like him as a comedian though, I liked his documentary 'Religulous'. But he's like John Stewart in the sense that he becomes such a partisan hack at times, that he's no longer funny.
He has the most sycophantic studio audience of any show I've ever seen. He would have no idea if he was funny or not.
Maher is certainly not a libertarian, but let's be fair..... the first libertarians were on the EXTREME left.
Hannity and o'reilly both throw in facts here and there too. But all three use the old standard when someone makes a legitimate point contrary to theirs...."well I think your wrong, next topic" not one of them let's the other side get a word in that could be contrary to their own. Everytime someone tries to, they shout at them, interrupt them, and immedieately switch topics. They all suck.
How new is the concept to criticize one's own government by stating " it's not an act of bravery to bomb cities from far away like the U.S. Military does." And that the terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were NOT Cowards. Got his ass Fired from ABC { show cancelled } yet Rush et.al. managed to defend his right of free speech.
I'd like for there to be a Special Academy Award { Oscar for all those Obama voters } for Funniest Putz in or out of the Movies . Funniest Putz of the Year Award. And there was only one Nominee ... Bill Maher.
Um, no it isn't!! Suicide is strictly forbidden. Terrorists with political agendas may distort Islam in order to fit their agendas, but their agendas ARE NOT in keeping with Islam. Yes, and the interpretation of this ideas is almost universally accepted to be defensive fighting. The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was accepted as righteous Jihad by almost every religious authority in the Muslim world. However, terrorism on the other hand, IS NOT!! What does this red herring have to do with anything? I made a very specific claim, which in no way entailed a ringing endorsement of those religious authorities!! I find both of them to be quite distasteful character(the Grand Mufit of Saudi Arabia in particular), but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point I made. You can't contradict my point on it's own terms, so you are forced to change the terms. That is fallacious, but unsurprising. Except of course, once again that is false. You don't like when I claim others are ignorant, but then people go out of their way to be ignorant, and what else am I supposed to do? All you have done is shown that one mentally unstable Muslim with a specific political agenda believes something, but the established doctrine of Islam is not in keeping with that mans view. Good lord, more astounding ignorance!! Truly unimaginably astounding!! My guess is that you have done a decent number of hours of research on the internet, read biased right wing hate sources, and read certain quotes of from the Quran, and you have come away thinking you have some level of expertise!! However, this is simply objectively false!! Have you ever heard of quietism? The majority of religious figures in the Middle East are quietist. There is unquestionably some separation between church and state in most Middle East countries(probably all, even Saudi Arabia). Just like, while the Ottoman Sultan claimed to be Caliph, the state and religion were clearly demarcated. There was overlap certainly, but the Ottoman Empire never held religious authorities to be greater than secular ones. The Ottoman Sultan simply used religious symbolism to legitimize his political authority. It isn't at all simple. This is why you continue to promote ignorance, because you may have read stuff online, but you clearly know close to nothing about the history of the Muslim world. This whole notion of 7th century idealism is what salafism is!! It is most accurate to trace this phenomenon back to Ibn Wahab in the 18th century. That is when Wahhabism was founded, and that is the religious sect Bin Laden belonged to. That is the religious sect that is in keeping with your view of Islam. Wahhabism is fundamentally and greatly different to anything that existed in say 7th, 8th, or 9th century Arab world. At the very earliest, if you want to go back as far as possible to the earliest strands of this sort of thinking, the farthest you can go back is to the decline of the Abbasids. Until that point, the Abbasid empire was at the apex of human civilization. The scientific, architectural, mathematical, philosophical, cultural, etc achievements of Muslims was astounding. On top of that, the sexual literature that came out of that period was enough to make a hippy blush!! I suggest you go read some Everett Rowson on Medieval sexuality and sexual literature. The Abassids were sexually liberated, culturally open, scientifically advanced, etc. They therefore had NO desire to go back to the ways of the 7th century. However, when that empire declined, is when you first began to see the conservatism you believe has always existed, begin to emerge in force. It was because people wondered why the Muslim world had declined, and they determined it was because they had become bad Muslims, and didn't live up to the standards of the earliest Muslims. This brand of thinking took on more significance after the defeat of the Muslim empires by the Mongols(that is legitimately the point in which it emerged, almost 700 years after the founding of Islam), but then went away with the rise of the Ottoman Empire. And it reemerged in the 17th-18th century in response to the rise of Europe in comparison to the Middle East. However, it didn't exist for about at the very least, the first 400-500 years of Islam!! Therefore your monolithic narrative simply doesn't hold up to historical examination!! What in the world does that non-sequitur have to do with anything?
