Saturday, April 27, 2013

Bill Maher continues to astonish me.

In the very recent past, Mr. Maher stated that he was jealous of the dictatorship in China because they could get things done and didn't have to answer to the demands of the stupid people, which, according to Maher is virtually anyone who doesn't see things his way.  He even suggested that Obama, our own poor darling struggling with the entanglements and inefficiencies of a constitutional republic, should just "drag them to it." You know, the stupid people. That would be you, kittens.

So how, Mr. Maher, do you suppose one might "drag" others to anything without a fair amount of force? Once you advocated for the powers of a dictatorship and its concomitant violence to gain your way, you are no longer believable when you wear your shocked face at a government that does just that. You don't get to get to look at what happened in Watertown during the apprehension of the second bombing suspect and say, "It's ridiculous. It's outa control."

Of course it's out of control. Power always goes out of control.

How did our government GET out of control? And under whom is it out of control? The sitting president of the United States is Mr. Peace Prize who stated categorically that he wanted a police force that was as big and powerful and well-funded as the entire US military. Well, you didn't even blink. You elected him. You armed him. You egged him on. You wanted him to "drag" people to your way of thinking.You wanted him to act more like a dictator.

So now he's using this force the way he wants to and it's not the way you think he should. Tough. The guy with the guns gets to decide who to shoot, stupid.

Remember, Mr. Maher, when the reality of a police state is fully implemented, you wanted this. You asked for it.

You just thought you could ride the lovely, heady, intoxicating power to smash and/or "drag" all the stupid people to your way of thinking. Turns out the stupid person here is you.


  1. I think Maher's beliefs are really closer to the dictatorial as expressed in the first clip. Mostly he's a populist demagogue who says whatever it takes so he can hang out with the cool "intellectual" crowd.

    He made at least two errors in that second clip. The trivial one is that there were no half-tracks there. I'm certainly no expert on military vehicles but I know a half-track when I see one. I suppose those would be APCs or MRAPs.

    The other is that there's no such thing as Miranda rights. Those are Constitutional rights and the police can't give or withhold them from anyone. The Miranda decision just said the police had to inform you of those rights or what you said couldn't be used against you in court. Later court decision said that in some cases they can use what you say even though they haven't read the warning yet. But you still have the rights whether they've officially read you the warning or not. At least that's the way it used to be, no telling what kind of games the courts have played with that over the years.

    1. I thought the same thing about the rights. WTF were they talking about that he thought they shouldn't have "Mirandized" him? All citizens have those rights BEFORE the government reminds us of them. Miranda rights just mean you are assuming everyone is an ignorant, stupid retarded moron and you have an obligation to TELL them of their rights before they do something stupid or retarded, like talk.

      They don't confer citizenship. Jesus! They were implying that if a cop doesn't run down the list, you are effed.

      As for the vehicles --- I'm clueless. They just look big and tough and completely and totally against the constitution.

    2. I've picked up on that implication several times in this whole "to Mirandize" or "not to Mirandize" debate. It's disturbing. They ought to have plenty of evidence for conviction regardless of whatever he said, Mirandized or not.

      A half-track has wheels at the front and tracks, like a tank or bulldozer, at the back. Looking big and tough is what SWAT teams are all about. Good enough against unarmed civilians or one or two individuals.

  2. OT, but if you'd care to bring some funny, Physics Geek was asking. You're better at it than I am.